Standing Committee E

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Housing Bill

Peter Pike: I believe that it will be helpful for members of the Committee if I indicate my thinking before we start. We are due to finish at 5 minutes to 7 today. I do not know whether anyone is minded to vote against pension increases, but there could, in theory, be a Division when the present debate concludes. I am told that it might come before the three hours allowed for the business are up. If there is a Division, the Committee will break then.
 I am minded to run through if it appears that we will finish by 6 o'clock. However, if, as seems more likely, it appears that we will sit until 5 minutes to 7, we will break at a convenient point after 5 o'clock for a maximum of half an hour. Is that helpful to members of the Committee? I am sure that people will keep me informed on how matters progress on the Floor of the House. 
 Clause 168 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 169 - Social Housing Ombudsman for Wales

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Yvette Cooper: The clause contains new provisions for the social housing ombudsman for Wales. It will enable investigation of complaints made against registered social landlords to be taken independent of the regulatory function that is exercised by the National Assembly for Wales. The independent housing ombudsman in England already carries out many of those functions, and the Housing Corporation regulates RSLs. The arrangements are slightly different in Wales due to the smaller number of RSLs that need to be regulated and about which complaints need to be investigated, but the overall effect is the same.
 I beg to move, that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Peter Pike: Order. The Minister does not need to move clause stand part, as I proposed the question, to which anyone can speak.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 169 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Schedule 8 agreed to.
 New Clause 30Local authority's right of first refusal

Local authority's right of first refusal

'(1) After section 36 of the Housing Act 1985 (c.68) insert—
 ''36A Right of first refusal for local authority
 (1) This section applies where, on a disposal of a house under section 32, a discount is given to the purchaser by the local authority in accordance with a consent given by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) of that section; but this section does not apply in any such case if the consent so provides.
 (2) On the disposal the conveyance, grant or assignment shall contain the following covenant, which shall be binding on the purchaser and his successors in title.
 (3) The covenant shall be to the effect that, until the end of the period of ten years beginning with the conveyance, grant or assignment, there will be no relevant disposal which is not an exempted disposal, unless the prescribed conditions have been satisfied in relation to that or a previous such disposal.
 (4) In subsection (3) ''the prescribed conditions'' means such conditions as are prescribed by regulations under this section at the time when the conveyance, grant or assignment is made.
 (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe such conditions as he considers appropriate for and in connection with conferring on—
(a) a local authority which have made a disposal as mentioned in subsection (1), or
(b) such other person as is determined in accordance with the regulations,
a right of first refusal to have a disposal within subsection (6) made to them or him for such consideration as is mentioned in section 36B.
 (6) The disposals within this subsection are—
(a) a reconveyance or conveyance of the house; and
(b) a surrender or assignment of the lease.
 (7) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision—
(a) for the purchaser to offer to make such a disposal to such person or persons as may be prescribed;
(b) for a prescribed recipient of such an offer to be able either to accept the offer or to nominate some other person as the person by whom the offer may be accepted;
(c) for the person who may be so nominated to be either a person of a prescribed description or a person whom the prescribed recipient considers, having regard to any prescribed matters, to be a more appropriate person to accept the offer;
(d) for a prescribed recipient making such a nomination to give a notification of the nomination to the person nominated, the purchaser and any other prescribed person;
(e) for authorising a nominated person to accept the offer and for determining which acceptance is to be effective where the offer is accepted by more than one person;
(f) for the period within which the offer may be accepted or within which any other prescribed step is to be, or may be, taken;
(g) for the circumstances in which the right of first refusal lapses (whether following the service of a notice to complete or otherwise) with the result that the purchaser is able to make a disposal on the open market;
(h) for the manner in which any offer, acceptance or notification is to be communicated.
 (8) In subsection (7) any reference to the purchaser is a reference to the purchaser or his successor in title.
 Nothing in that subsection affects the generality of subsection (5).
 (9) Regulations under this section—
(a) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case; and
(b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
 (10) A disposal in breach of the covenant mentioned in subsection (3) shall be void.
 36B Consideration payable for disposal under section 36A
 (1) The consideration for a disposal made in respect of a right of first refusal as mentioned in section 36A(5) shall be such amount as may be agreed between the parties, or determined by the district valuer, as being the amount which is to be taken to be the value of the house at the time when the offer is made (as determined in accordance with regulations under that section).
 (2) That value shall be taken to be the price which, at that time, the interest to be reconveyed, conveyed, surrendered or assigned would realise if sold on the open market by a willing vendor, on the assumption that any liability under the covenant required by section 35 (repayment of discount on early disposal) would be discharged by the vendor.
 (3) If the offer is accepted in accordance with regulations under section 36A, no payment shall be required in pursuance of any such covenant as is mentioned in subsection (2), but the consideration shall be reduced, subject to subsection (4), by such amount (if any) as, on a disposal made at the time the offer was made, being a relevant disposal which is not an exempted disposal, would fall to be paid under that covenant.
 (4) Where there is a charge on the house having priority over the charge to secure payment of the sum due under the covenant mentioned in subsection (2), the consideration shall not be reduced under subsection (3) below the amount necessary to discharge the outstanding sum secured by the first-mentioned charge at the date of the offer (as determined in accordance with regulations under section 36A).''
 (2) In section 33(2) of the Housing Act 1985 (c.68) (covenants and conditions which may be imposed), after ''But'' insert '', subject to sections 36A and 37,''.
 (3) In section 37(1) of that Act (restriction on disposal of dwelling-houses in National Parks etc.),after ''restriction on assignment)'' insert ''or a covenant as mentioned in section 36A(3) (right of first refusal for local authority)''.
 (4) In section 41 of that Act (exempted disposals which end liability under covenants), after paragraph (a) insert—
''(aa) the covenant required by section 36A (right of first refusal for local authority) is not binding on the person to whom the disposal is made or any successor in title of his, and that covenant ceases to apply in relation to the property disposed of, and''.
 (5) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a disposal under section 32 of that Act if—
(a) the purchaser has accepted an offer for the disposal of the house from the authority, or
(b) the authority has accepted an offer for the disposal of the house from the purchaser,
before the day on which this section comes into force.'.—[Keith Hill.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Keith Hill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government new clause 31—Registered social landlord's right of first refusal. 
 Government new clause 32—Housing action trust's right of first refusal.

Robert Syms: The new clauses give a right of first refusal to the local authority; essentially, that is achieved by putting a covenant in the deeds for 10 years. Presumably, if someone died or wanted to sell the property, their solicitor would have to tell the local authority. A house with a covenant in the deeds could not be sold, but what would be the situation if the house was left in a will to a son, daughter, sister or brother? What would trigger the
 local authority's right of first refusal? Would such a right pre-empt any rights that family members had to the property? The sister who had inherited the property from the deceased person might have a greater need for the house than someone whom the RSL or local authority wanted to put into the property. I would like a little more detail about how the provision would work. If the property were simply put on the market—or, rather, if someone wanted to sell the property—one could understand the local authority having first refusal, but if the property were left to a relative, could the local authority or the registered social landlord insist on exercising its right of first refusal and buy that property at the market rate? I would be interested in the Minister's comments. If he cannot answer I would be happy for him to write to me with any details, although I am sure he has the facts at his fingertips.

Keith Hill: The facts have reached my fingertips and I am in a position to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Under section 39 of the Housing Act 1985, section 15 of the Housing Act 1996 and paragraph 4 to schedule 11 of the Housing Act 1988, such disposals are deemed to be exempted disposals. In other words, inheritance by spouses and family members who have lived in the property for 12 months are not caught by the right of first refusal under the terms of the current Acts.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31 - Registered social landlord's right of first refusal

'(1) After section 12 of the Housing Act 1996 (c.52) insert— 
 ''12A{**em**}Right of first refusal for registered social landlord 
 (1) Where on a disposal of a house by a registered social landlord, in accordance with a consent given by the Relevant Authority under section 9, a discount has been given to the purchaser, and the consent does not provide otherwise, the conveyance, grant or assignment shall contain the following covenant, which shall be binding on the purchaser and his successors in title. 
 (2) The covenant shall be to the effect that, until the end of the period of ten years beginning with the conveyance, grant or assignment, there will be no relevant disposal which is not an exempted disposal, unless the prescribed conditions have been satisfied in relation to that or a previous such disposal. 
 (3) In subsection (2) ''the prescribed conditions'' means such conditions as are prescribed by regulations under this section at the time when the conveyance, grant or assignment is made. 
 (4) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe such conditions as he considers appropriate for and in connection with conferring on— 
 (a) a registered social landlord which has made a disposal as mentioned in subsection (1), or 
 (b) such other person as is determined in accordance with the regulations, 
 a right of first refusal to have a disposal within subsection (5) made to him for such consideration as is mentioned in section 12B. 
 (5) The disposals within this subsection are— 
 (a) a reconveyance or conveyance of the house; and 
 (b) a surrender or assignment of the lease.
 (6) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make provision— 
 (a) for the purchaser to offer to make such a disposal to such person or persons as may be prescribed; 
 (b) for a prescribed recipient of such an offer to be able either to accept the offer or to nominate some other person as the person by whom the offer may be accepted; 
 (c) for the person who may be so nominated to be either a person of a prescribed description or a person whom the prescribed recipient considers, having regard to any prescribed matters, to be a more appropriate person to accept the offer; 
 (d) for a prescribed recipient making such a nomination to give a notification of the nomination to the person nominated, the purchaser and any other prescribed person; 
 (e) for authorising a nominated person to accept the offer and for determining which acceptance is to be effective where the offer is accepted by more than one person; 
 (f) for the period within which the offer may be accepted or within which any other prescribed step is to be, or may be, taken; 
 (g) for the circumstances in which the right of first refusal lapses (whether following the service of a notice to complete or otherwise) with the result that the purchaser is able to make a disposal on the open market; 
 (h) for the manner in which any offer, acceptance or notification is to be communicated. 
 (7) In subsection (6) any reference to the purchaser is a reference to the purchaser or his successor in title. 
 Nothing in that subsection affects the generality of subsection (4). 
 (8) Regulations under this section— 
 (a) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case; and 
 (b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 
 (9) A disposal in breach of the covenant mentioned in subsection (2) shall be void. 
 (10) Where there is a relevant disposal which is an exempted disposal by virtue of section 15(4)(d) or (e) (compulsory disposal or disposal of yard, garden, &c)-- 
 (a) the covenant required by this section is not binding on the person to whom the disposal is made or any successor in title of his, and 
 (b) the covenant ceases to apply in relation to the property disposed of. 
 12B Consideration payable for disposal under section 12A 
 (1) The consideration for a disposal made in respect of a right of first refusal as mentioned in section 12A(4) shall be such amount as may be agreed between the parties, or determined by the district valuer, as being the amount which is to be taken to be the value of the house at the time when the offer is made (as determined in accordance with regulations under that section). 
 (2) That value shall be taken to be the price which, at that time, the interest to be reconveyed, conveyed, surrendered or assigned would realise if sold on the open market by a willing vendor, on the assumption that any liability under the covenant required by section 11 (repayment of discount on early disposal) would be discharged by the vendor. 
 (3) If the offer is accepted in accordance with regulations under section 12A, no payment shall be required in pursuance of any such covenant as is mentioned in subsection (2), but the consideration shall be reduced, subject to subsection (4), by such amount (if any) as, on a disposal made at the time the offer was made, being a relevant disposal which is not an exempted disposal, would fall to be paid under that covenant. 
 (4) Where there is a charge on the house having priority over the charge to secure payment of the sum due under the covenant mentioned in subsection (2), the consideration shall not be reduced under subsection (3) below the amount necessary to discharge the outstanding sum secured by the first-mentioned charge at the date of the offer (as determined in accordance with regulations under section 12A).''
 (2) In section 13(1) of the Housing Act 1996 (c.52) (restriction on disposal of houses in National Parks, &c), after ``restriction on assignment)'' insert ''or a covenant as mentioned in section 12A(2) of this Act (right of first refusal for registered social landlord)''. 
 (3) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a disposal under section 8 of that Act if— 
 (a) the purchaser has accepted an offer for the disposal of the house from the landlord, or 
 (b) the landlord has accepted an offer for the disposal of the house from the purchaser, 
 before the day on which this section comes into force.'. 
 —[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 32 - Housing action trust's right of first refusal

'(1) After paragraph 2 of Schedule 11 to the Housing Act 1988 (c.50) insert— 
 ''Right of first refusal for housing action trust 
 2A (1) This paragraph applies where, on the disposal of a house under section 79 of this Act, a discount is given to the purchaser by the housing action trust in accordance with a consent given by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) of that section and that consent does not exclude the application of this paragraph. 
(2) On the disposal, the conveyance, grant or assignment shall contain the following covenant, which shall be binding on the purchaser and his successors in title. 
 (3) The covenant shall be to the effect that, until the end of the period of ten years beginning with the conveyance, grant or assignment, there will be no relevant disposal which is not an exempted disposal, unless the prescribed conditions have been satisfied in relation to that or a previous such disposal. 
 (4) In sub-paragraph (3) ''the prescribed conditions'' means such conditions as are prescribed by regulations under this section at the time when the conveyance, grant or assignment is made. 
 (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe such conditions as he considers appropriate for and in connection with conferring on— 
 (a) a housing action trust which has made a disposal as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), or 
 (b) such other person as is determined in accordance with the regulations, 
 a right of first refusal to have a disposal within sub-paragraph (6) made to him for such consideration as is mentioned in paragraph 2B. 
 (6) The disposals within this sub-paragraph are— 
 (a) a reconveyance or conveyance of the house; and 
 (b) a surrender or assignment of the lease. 
 (7) Regulations under this paragraph may, in particular, make provision— 
 (a) for the purchaser to offer to make such a disposal to such person or persons as may be prescribed; 
 (b) for a prescribed recipient of such an offer to be able either to accept the offer or to nominate some other person as the person by whom the offer may be accepted; 
 (c) for the person who may be so nominated to be either a person of a prescribed description or a person whom the prescribed recipient considers, having regard to any prescribed matters, to be a more appropriate person to accept the offer; 
 (d) for a prescribed recipient making such a nomination to give a notification of the nomination to the person nominated, the purchaser and any other prescribed person;
 (e) for authorising a nominated person to accept the offer and for determining which acceptance is to be effective where the offer is accepted by more than one person; 
 (f) for the period within which the offer may be accepted or within which any other prescribed step is to be, or may be, taken; 
 (g) for the circumstances in which the right of first refusal lapses (whether following the service of a notice to complete or otherwise) with the result that the purchaser is able to make a disposal on the open market; 
 (h) for the manner in which any offer, acceptance or notification is to be communicated. 
 (8) In sub-paragraph (7) any reference to the purchaser is a reference to the purchaser or his successor in title. 
 Nothing in that sub-pargaraph affects the generality of sub-pargaraph (5). 
 (9) Regulations under this paragraph— 
 (a) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case; and 
 (b) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. 
 (10) A disposal in breach of the covenant mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) shall be void. 
 Consideration payable for disposal under paragraph 2A 
 2B (1) The consideration for a disposal made in respect of a right of first refusal as mentioned in paragraph 2A(5) shall be such amount as may be agreed between the parties, or determined by the district valuer, as being the amount which is to be taken to be the value of the house at the time when the offer is made (as determined in accordance with regulations under that paragraph). 
(2) That value shall be taken to be the price which, at that time, the interest to be reconveyed, conveyed, surrendered or assigned would realise if sold on the open market by a willing vendor, on the assumption that any liability under the covenant required by paragraph 1 (repayment of discount on early disposal) would be discharged by the vendor. 
 (3) If the offer is accepted in accordance with regulations under paragraph 2A, no payment shall be required in pursuance of any such covenant as is mentioned in sub-paragaraph (2), but the consideration shall be reduced, subject to sub-paragaraph (4), by such amount (if any) as, on a disposal made at the time the offer was made, being a relevant disposal which is not an exempted disposal, would fall to be paid under that covenant. 
 (4) Where there is a charge on the house having priority over the charge to secure payment of the sum due under the covenant mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the consideration shall not be reduced under sub-paragraph (3) below the amount necessary to discharge the outstanding sum secured by the first-mentioned charge at the date of the offer (as determined in accordance with regulations under paragraph 2A).'' 
 (2) In paragraph 6 of Schedule 11 to that Act (exempted disposals ending obligation under covenants), at the end of paragraph (b) insert ''and 
 (c) the covenant required by paragraph 2A above is not binding on the person to whom the disposal is made or any successor in title of his; and 
 (d) that covenant ceases to apply in relation to the property disposed of.'' 
 (3) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to a disposal under section 79 of that Act if— 
 (a) the purchaser has accepted an offer for the disposal of the house from the housing action trust, or 
 (b) the housing action trust has accepted an offer for the disposal of the house from the purchaser, 
 before the day on which this section comes into force.'. 
 —[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 34 - Amendments relating to registered social landlords

'Schedule (Registered social landlords) (which makes amendments relating to registered social landlords) has effect.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 35 - Disclosure of information to registered social landlords for the purposes of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

'In section 115(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) after paragraph (d) insert— 
 ''(da) a person registered under section 1 of the Housing Act 1996 as a social landlord;''.'.—[Yvette Cooper.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I rise only to address a point that raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). The new clause is about enabling RSLs to receive relevant information when dealing with antisocial behaviour orders and with existing antisocial behaviour. For example, to receive information from other bodies in order to support ASBO applications, RSLs have had to show that they are acting on behalf of a relevant authority, such as the police or the local authority implementing the local crime and disorder strategy. In fact, RSLs are unlikely to be acting on behalf of any other body when seeking ASBOs. New clause 35 removes the requirement by making RSLs themselves a relevant authority for the purposes of receiving information. The information has to be relevant information for the antisocial behaviour provisions set out in the Bill and other legislation. It does not apply to private developers or to private landlords: they do not have the power to seek ASBOs or to implement many of the measures that we have extended to RSLs to tackle antisocial behaviour. That is why we think there is a strong case for private developers working with RSLs and perhaps getting an RSL to manage their stock. Because they do not have those additional powers, the information provision would not apply to them in the same way. It would apply only to the RSLs.

Matthew Green: I welcome that clarification. The new clause will allow relatively sensitive information—people's criminal records and the like—to be given to RSLs in certain circumstances. We recognise that we need to tackle antisocial behaviour, and the new clause may aid us in that. However, I would like the Under-Secretary to confirm the safeguards on the uses of that information by the RSL, and to comment on how widely among the staff of the RSL it would be appropriate for such information to be known.

Yvette Cooper: We should be clear: the clause does nothing to remove the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1998. That Act still applies. All the
 information must be processed fairly and lawfully by the RSL, and any information that it receives must be handled appropriately and fairly according to the definition in that Act. RSLs may well be entitled to receive such information anyway if they can state that they are acting on behalf of a relevant authority, such as the police or the local authority. We are talking about information that the local authority can receive in similar circumstances, too.
 The information in question is limited to information that is relevant for the purposes, so RSLs are not entitled to request irrelevant information from other organisations. The provision is appropriately constrained for the purpose of tackling antisocial behaviour. The new clause deals specifically with ASBOs, and is supported by the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, which represents local authorities and RSLs and which described the new clause as ''eminently sensible and constructive''. I am aware of the issues relating to sensitive information, but we have to ensure that RSLs can take sensible action to deal with antisocial behaviour. Unlike local authorities and other agencies, RSLs are currently prevented from doing that. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 44 - Particulars of site agreements to be given in advance

'(1) For section 1 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) (particulars of agreements between site owners and occupiers of mobile homes) substitute— 
 ''1 Particulars of agreements 
 (1) This Act applies to any agreement under which a person (''the occupier'') is entitled— 
 (a) to station a mobile home on land forming part of a protected site; and 
 (b) to occupy the mobile home as his only or main residence. 
 (2) Before making an agreement to which this Act applies, the owner of the protected site (''the owner'') shall give to the proposed occupier under the agreement a written statement which— 
 (a) specifies the names and addresses of the parties; 
 (b) includes particulars of the land on which the proposed occupier is to be entitled to station the mobile home that are sufficient to identify that land; 
 (c) sets out the express terms to be contained in the agreement; 
 (d) sets out the terms to be implied by section 2(1) below; and 
 (e) complies with such other requirements as may be prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate national authority. 
 (3) The written statement required by subsection (2) above must be given— 
 (a) not later than 28 days before the date on which any agreement for the sale of the mobile home to the proposed occupier is made, or 
 (b) (if no such agreement is made before the making of the agreement to which this Act applies) not later than 28 days before the date on which the agreement to which this Act applies is made.
 (4) But if the proposed occupier consents in writing to that statement being given to him by a date (''the chosen date'') which is less than 28 days before the date mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above, the statement must be given to him not later than the chosen date. 
 (5) If any express term— 
 (a) is contained in an agreement to which this Act applies, but 
 (b) was not set out in a written statement given to the proposed occupier in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) above, 
 the term is unenforceable by the owner or any person within section 3(1) below. 
 This is subject to any order made by the court under section 2(3) below. 
 (6) If the owner has failed to give the occupier a written statement in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) above, the occupier may, at any time after the making of the agreement, apply to the court for an order requiring the owner— 
 (a) to give him a written statement which complies with paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2) (read with any modifications necessary to reflect the fact that the agreement has been made), and 
 (b) to do so not later than such date as is specified in the order. 
 (7) A statement required to be given to a person under this section may be either delivered to him personally or sent to him by post. 
 (8) Any reference in this section to the making of an agreement to which this Act applies includes a reference to any variation of an agreement by virtue of which the agreement becomes one to which this Act applies. 
 (9) Regulations under this section— 
 (a) shall be made by statutory instrument; 
 (b) if made by the Secretary of State, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and 
 (c) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case, including different provision for different areas.'' 
 (2) Section 2 of that Act (terms of agreements) is amended as follows— 
 (a) in subsection (2), for ''within six months of the giving of the statement under section 1(2) above'' substitute ''within the relevant period''; and 
 (b) for subsection (3) substitute— 
 ''(3) The court may, on the application of either party made within the relevant period, make an order— 
 (a) varying or deleting any express term of the agreement; 
 (b) in the case of any express term to which section 1(6) above applies, provide for the term to have full effect or to have such effect subject to any variation specified in the order. 
 (3A) In subsections (2) and (3) above ''the relevant period'' means the period beginning with the date on which the agreement is made and ending— 
 (a) six months after that date, or 
 (b) where a written statement relating to the agreement is given to the occupier after that date (whether or not in compliance with an order under section 1(5) above), six months after the date on which the statement is given; 
 and section 1(8) above applies for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of section 1.'' 
 (3) In section 5(1) of that Act (interpretation) insert at the appropriate place— 
 ''the appropriate national authority'' means— 
 (a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and 
 (b) in relation to Wales, the National Assembly for Wales.'' 
 (4) The amendments made by subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to an agreement to which that Act applies where— 
 (a) the agreement, or
 (b) (if it becomes one to which that Act applies as the result of any variation of it) the variation in question, 
 is made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which those subsections come into force. 
 (5) The new section 1(9)(b) inserted by subsection (1) does not affect the continuing validity of any regulations made under section 1 of that Act before the passing of this Act.'. 
 —[Yvette Cooper.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Government new clause 45—Implied terms relating to termination of agreements or disposal of mobile homes. 
 Government new clause 46—Power to amend terms implied in site agreements. 
 Government new clause 47—Succession to site agreements by same sex partners. 
 Government new clause 48—Extension of protection from harassment for occupiers of mobile homes. 
 New clause 27—Amendment of Caravan Sites Act 1968— 
 '(1) The Caravan Sites Act 1968 is amended as follows. 
 (2) After section 4, there is inserted— 
 ''4A Residents Associations 
 A Residents Association shall be recognised on each protected site to meet regularly with the licensee and management to review park standards and amenities and negotiate the pitch fee.''. 
 (3) For section 5(5) there is substituted— 
 ''(5) The Protection from Eviction Act 1977 (c.43) (protection against harassment and eviction without due process of law) shall apply to any premises being a caravan stationed on a protected site.''.'. 
New clause 28—Amendment of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960— 
 '(1) The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 is amended as follows. 
 (2) After section 3(6), add— 
 ''(7) In deciding whether a person is a fit and proper person to be the licence holder or manager of a residential park the local housing authority must have regard to the criteria set out in section 55 of the Housing Act.''. 
 (3) In section 9, leave out ''level 4'' and insert ''£20,000''. 
 (4) After section 10(1) there is inserted— 
 ''(1A) Where the holder of a site licence in respect of any land has or intends to transfer his interest in the land to which the licence relates he shall inform the local authority and provide them with the name and address of the transferee.''. 
 (5) After section 10, there is inserted— 
 ''10A Licence conditions 
 A local authority which has issued a site licence shall be under a duty regularly to consider whether it is necessary or desirable to attach conditions to the licence or to alter or cancel existing conditions and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that such conditions as are attached to a site licence are being complied with.''.'. 
New clause 29—Amendment of the Mobile Homes Act 1983— 
 '(1) The Mobile Homes Act 1983 is amended as follows. 
 (2) After section (1) there is inserted— 
 ''1A (1) Before the making of an agreement to which this Act applies the owner of the protected site shall give to the potential buyer a copy of the written statement.
 (2) The written statement shall be signed by both parties on the day of sale. 
 (3) The implied terms of that written statement shall include particulars of the land on which the occupier is entitled to station the park home sufficient to identify— 
 (a) the boundaries of the land on which the mobile home may be located; and 
 (b) the services provided on that land.''.'. 
Government amendments Nos. 458, 459, 464 and 465.

Yvette Cooper: The issue of park homes was raised repeatedly on Second Reading. As the Committee will be aware, we had hoped that a private Member's Bill parallel with the Housing Bill would contain many of these measures, but that has not happened. We do not think that it is right to wait any longer to implement some of the key recommendations of the park homes working party, which will improve the rights of park home owners across the country. I congratulate the working party, which has campaigned extensively to improve the rights of park home owners, who face unfair pressure and treatment in certain sites across the country.
 New clause 44 would require owners of park home sites to provide a written statement setting out the terms and conditions of a site agreement to the other party at least 28 days before that agreement commences. That would remove the anomaly in the Mobile Homes Act 1983, which enables site owners to provide the terms and conditions of the agreement up to three months after the agreement commences. It will still be possible for parties to agree a period shorter than 28 days between themselves, but the occupier must give his consent in writing to the specified shorter timetable. 
 The new clause is designed to ensure that potential park home occupiers are in the strongest possible negotiating position with the site owner before coming on to the site. Given that many of the conditions of site agreements are already laid out in the implied terms in schedule 1 to the 1983 Act, it has always been possible in theory for occupiers to find many of the terms of their agreement by looking at the legislation, if they know how to get hold of it and understand its details. However, site owners may also include express terms specific to their park in the agreement and previous legislation does not provide for an occupier to have prior knowledge of those. That puts occupiers in an unreasonable position, because they must, in effect, sign up to an agreement without knowing detailed provisions that govern their site and the home that they have purchased. 
 The new clause provides that any express terms of an agreement that are enforceable by the site owner can be enforced through the courts only if they are set out in writing 28 days in advance of agreement. That will act as an incentive for site owners to abide by the new requirement: for example, if a site owner wants to ensure that he will be able to move an occupier's home to a different pitch in future, he will have to set that out in an express term in advance of the agreement; and if he does not provide that in writing 28 days in advance 
 of the agreement commencing, the provision cannot be enforced against the occupier—the owner simply will not have the right to move the occupier's home—whereas any express terms that are enforceable at the suit of the occupier and would work in the occupier's favour can be enforced against the site owner. In the event of the owner failing to produce a written statement, the occupier may apply to the court at any time after the making of an agreement for an order requiring the owner to produce the written statement. 
 New clause 45 meets two of the park homes working party's recommendations. Age will no longer be a relevant criterion when a site owner applies to terminate an agreement because of a detrimental effect on the amenity of the site. Site owners will still be able to apply to the court to end an agreement because of the condition of a home, but not simply on the basis of its age. The new clause also introduces a new procedure so that the court can allow the occupier time to effect repairs to their home. 
 We understand that when an occupier wishes to sell his home, some site owners delay the process by failing to give or withholding approval of a prospective purchaser. New clause 45 requires site owners to give occupiers their decisions about potential purchasers in writing within 28 days of notification by the occupier of a request for approval. If such a decision is not forthcoming, occupiers may apply to the court for an order declaring that the purchaser is approved. 
 Agreements are often of infinite duration, so when a home is sold on by an existing occupier, the original agreement is simply assigned, so the agreement can, for example, pass by succession on the death of an occupier. It is therefore important not only that the changes are made for future agreements, but that they apply to existing agreements. The new clause makes provision for that. 
 New clause 46 adds to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 a power for the appropriate national authority to prescribe new implied terms for site agreements and to repeal and vary existing implied terms. We are considering tabling a statutory instrument that includes an implied term giving the occupier the right to quiet enjoyment of their home. We want to consider that in more detail and we would need to consult stakeholders. Again, it is important that such changes apply to existing agreements as well as future ones. The first order made under this power could therefore have retrospective effect. Any changes made to implied terms when the order is first used would also affect the implied terms of existing agreements, but future exercises of the power would be prospective, not retrospective.

David Kidney: Under that provision, could there be an implied term that the owner has to be a fit and proper person to manage the park homes site, or would that require specific legislation? If the latter, why are we not seeking to do that in this Bill?

Yvette Cooper: I shall come to the question of fit and proper persons. It would probably be hard to introduce such a provision under secondary
 legislation, because of the complexity of the issues that we would need to deal with. Many clauses of the Bill deal with issues around fit and proper persons for the purposes of selective licensing and the HMO regime. The matter is addressed one of the Government amendments grouped with new clause 44, so I will discuss it when I set out the purpose of those amendments.
 The order made under the power would be made under the affirmative procedure. There is also a consultation requirement. This power would provide considerable potential to deter bad practice in the industry. 
 New clause 47 gives same-sex partners rights equivalent to those of unmarried different-sex partners to succeed to an agreement to station a home under the Mobile Homes Act 1983. New clause 48 amends the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to mirror the Protection From Eviction Act 1977, which gives park home occupiers the same protection as that afforded to occupiers of conventional housing. It makes an important change to the wording in relation to the existing offence under section 3 of the Caravan Sites Act. At the moment it says that the acts in question must be 
''calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort'' 
of an occupier. The new wording provides that the acts must be 
''likely to interfere with the peace or comfort''. 
That would increase the chances of bringing successful prosecutions and the deterrent to site owners who harass or put unfair pressure on park home owners. The measure introduces a new offence, which mirrors that which appears in the Protection From Eviction Act. The offence could be committed either by a site owner or by an agent, and does not require intent with regard to the harassing actions. Offences under section 3 of the Caravan Sites Act will in future be either-way offences, not summary offences as they are at the moment. 
 This clause will, as a whole, give park home occupiers equivalent protection to that afforded to occupiers of conventional housing. That is important. We know that park home owners are more likely to be elderly and/or vulnerable, and to be in a difficult position when enforcing such rights as they have under current legislation. Many park home site owners and the representative bodies support the proposed measures and have been involved in the park homes working group. Some irresponsible park home site owners put undue pressure on the occupiers of their site in an unfair, unpleasant and deeply distressing way. It is right that we provide park homes occupiers with greater protection against such treatment, and that is what the new clauses are designed to do. 
 Further new clauses have been tabled by other hon. Members and by my hon. Friends. New clause 27 aims to implement two of the park homes working party's recommendations: first, that residents associations should be recognised and, secondly, that residents should enjoy the same level of protection against harassment as is afforded to private tenants. The Government have accepted the recommendation of the working party that procedures should be 
 established for recognising residents associations. However, the new clause as proposed does not properly set out what qualifying criteria should apply to recognition or who should decide whether the criteria have been met. It also confers on residents associations powers that do not apply to leaseholder residents associations—for example, the power to negotiate the pitch fee. There are no similar powers for leaseholder residents associations to negotiate service charges, although there are safeguards connected with the leasehold valuation tribunal. Residents associations will only really be effective if there is a body to which either party to a dispute can apply for arbitration. That would require primary legislation as well as full consultation with the industry and with park home owners. We would also need to establish to which body the parties should appeal in the course of a dispute. 
 We have considered the matter, but we do not believe that we can resolve all the details at this time, so we have chosen to concentrate on the measures that we can implement most quickly and that would make the greatest difference to park home owners. That is why we have confined ourselves to the new clauses, but they are not the end of the story. There is further opportunity to consider legislation and ways in which to implement the remaining working party recommendations, including those on residents associations. Many of the issues are tenure-related, and we have already said that we will consider the Law Commission's recommendations on tenure and associated legislation for the future. We agree with the second part of new clause 27 in relation to the Protection From Eviction Act 1977, and we have tabled an amendment to that effect. 
 New clause 28 aims to implement the park homes working party recommendations relating to site licensing and the licensing of owners or managers. The Government have accepted many of the recommendations and we intend to honour our commitment, but we do not consider that the new clause would implement those recommendations in a way that will work in practice. We have commissioned consultants to carry out detailed consideration of all the site-licensing recommendations, with particular reference to licensing regimes in the private rented sector. As part of their work, they are considering whether the criteria on fit and proper persons should be the same for site owners as for owners or managers of HMOs. They are also considering what procedures would be necessary to ensure that new site owners meet fit and proper criteria on the transfer of site licence provisions. That will obviously require consultation with local authorities. The consultants are examining the extent of local authorities' duties to attach, monitor and enforce site licence conditions, and the additional burden that those provisions will place on a local authority. They are also tasked with making recommendations on reviewing and updating the model standards that are attached to site licences. They will hold discussions with stakeholders and local authorities to establish appropriate procedures that 
 are fully workable. We expect the consultants' report shortly after Easter, but it is not something on we can swiftly propose amendments at this time. 
 There are two main reasons for that. First, the present site licensing system is based on planning considerations rather than on the attributes of a licence holder. To develop a new licensing system that addresses planning issues and the matters that we discussed at some length when we debated licensing systems applying to houses in multiple occupation or selective licensing would require some work to ensure that it was done effectively and appropriately. Secondly, a licensing regime requires us to set out details of what happens if the owner of the site were not a fit and proper person. Earlier, we discussed proposals for interim management orders and for local authorities effectively to take over the management of an HMO or a property under selective licensing. They are quite complex and we have had considerable discussion about them. To attempt to draft similar or parallel provisions when we might need different arrangements for park homes, given their size and the nature of the sites, would be premature and would risk making too many mistakes. For that reason, we do not believe that we act now. However, the consultants' report is under way, so we hope to make progress soon. 
 New clause 29 is designed to implement a working party recommendation that the written statement of the agreement should be provided in advance of sale. We have accepted that recommendation and have tabled a Government amendment to that effect. In fact we have gone further than the new clause by ensuring that there is a mechanism for the future amendment of implied terms as well. 
 I hope that the Committee will accept that it is right, at this stage, to take forward the main measures that will have the greatest impact, in the short term, on those who live in park homes, who are often vulnerable, and could face unfair treatment. Considerably more work needs to be done on many of the other measures. We have already set in train a programme of work on some of the most important remaining measures. We have an opportunity to consider the next steps, in terms of legislation, as part of our consideration of the Law Commission's work on tenure. 
 On that basis, Mr Pike, I would ask hon. Members to support the Government amendments and to withdraw their further amendments that have been tabled on this issue.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary has wisely—and the Government have sensibly—taken on board many of the points that have been made by hon. Members in all parts of the House about the particular problems in respect of park homes. As you will remember, Mr Pike, those concerns were voiced on Second Reading. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who is a great champion of these matters, made it clear then that there are profound problems with park homes, but said that park homes
 provide a useful way of making available accommodation that, when properly run, can be extremely desirable and go some way to help with housing shortages.
 The Under-Secretary said that such homes are often occupied by older people, and particularly by vulnerable groups. I certainly agree with that, so it is all the more important that we are absolutely clear about the circumstances in which these park estates operate. 
 You will note, Mr Pike, that we tabled an unselected amendment on these subjects. I fully acknowledge that the Government have gone some way, following publication of the Bill, and have taken into account the comments made on Second Reading, not least by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who made it clear that there are a number of rogue park owners. The Government have responded in a reasonably positive way. We welcome that mood and those measures. However, I am not sure that they go far enough. I will say why and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of the points. 
 It is worth quoting the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, who said that if the minority of 
''park owners who make their residents' lives a misery''—[Official Report, 12 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 613.] 
were removed through the right legislation, park homes could be a big part of the solution to providing affordable, adaptable, good quality, sustainable housing. The hon. Gentleman is right about that. However, I doubt that Bill gives residents sufficient powers to remove such rogue owners. 
 My specific concerns are drawn from a letter from the National Park Homes Council, which wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) about its concerns because it knows, as you do Mr Pike, that my hon. Friend always takes the plight of vulnerable people seriously, and that he is a champion of the interests of people in the greatest need. The letter noted that our amendment talked about the issue of ''recognition'' of a constituted ''residents' association'' by landlords. It went on to say that the council presumed that such recognition should include the receipt of appropriate information, consultation on matters affecting homes and participation as individuals or through representative groups. We presume the same. If that type of relationship ensues as a result of the measures before us, we might be able to overcome some of the problems of those park home residents who feel that they are often not listened to, that their concerns are not sufficiently taken into account and that they have little redress over management issues of park estates. 
 However, there are questions about the provisions that I have described, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to answer them. What information does she feel it would be appropriate for an estate owner to provide to residents? How does she define a fit and proper person? The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), as ever observant of those matters, raised that question. 
 In earlier sittings, we deemed it appropriate to discuss fit and proper persons; when we were dealing with HMOs, we debated the matter at some length. It would be consistent to have a clear understanding of what is a fit and proper person in the provisions under discussion, as it would make the Bill coherent and afford people the protection that I have described. 
 Should one or more residents associations be recognised on a park with anything from six to 200 pitches? On a small park, it is likely that there will be one representative association, but on a larger park, there may be more. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that there are about 200,000 park homes, so it is a significant issue. Finally, what controls should there be to ensure that a residents association is democratically consulted, sufficiently represented and accountable to its members in order to safeguard the interests of less vocal residents? We do not want the Bill or the accompanying guidance to recognise associations of individuals if the organisations are not democratically accountable or constituted in a proper way. 
 Leaving aside procurement and the provision of goods and services to residents, greater clarity is needed on the relationship between estate owners and occupiers, on representation and consultation and on information. The Government have made a step in the right direction but I am not convinced that they have gone far enough to satisfy the whole Committee, some of their recalcitrant Members or some outside this place who had expected much more. It is a start, it may even be a fair start but it is not yet a good start. The Under-Secretary can make it so with her response to my questions.

David Kidney: Mine is an inadequate voice to speak on behalf of about 250,000 people who depend on and enjoy their residence on park homes. At this stage of the Bill's progress I say ''thank you'' to the Under-Secretary for the amendments to include new protections for residents of park homes.
 Although for the purposes of the debate we focus on the problems of park homes, on the whole they provide a positive and happy environment. The owners contribute to the positive image of that housing sector, which to a large extent provides affordable housing and happy and law-abiding communities. It has already been mentioned that many of the residents are elderly. They tend to respect their property and environment and they have a responsible attitude that makes for happy, cohesive communities, which are no trouble to anybody. 
 On occasions, unfortunately, bad behaviour from site owners impacts on the happiness and quality of life of some vulnerable people. We should help people in that situation. Today, we talk of people who live in park homes, but legislation lags behind us. We talk of caravans in legislation from 1968 and mobile homes in legislation from 1983. Bringing the legislation up to date is technically difficult, so it is a shame that we will legislate for the continuation of caravans and mobile homes in law when we know that we are discussing modern park homes. 
 I shall provide a picture of my constituency, where there are six park homes sites, one owned by a local authority and the rest in private ownership. They form the happy, secure communities that I have already described. Sadly about two years ago, into the life of one of those communities came a man who bought the whole site overnight for cash and openly announced that he wanted the people who lived there off his site because he did not like the agreements with which he was lumbered and he wanted to be able to re-let the accommodation to other people at a greater price. The people who lived there found that the law gave them little protection against this person. The local authority could talk about a licence for the site, but could do nothing to control his behaviour. Those people had little recourse to action following his intimidation of them. 
 I can only say thank goodness that that person was not exempt from the natural laws of the land, and was eventually arrested by the police for physical assault on one of the residents. That is what it took before there was some intervention to help a lot of people who had become very unhappy. As a result of direct constituency involvement, I am therefore pleased to add my voice in support of this legislation. 
 I am a member of the all-party group on park home owners, which meets representatives of the owners and residents and hears dreadful stories from some parts of the country. There are stories of there being no written statement of the terms, so owners try to change the terms unilaterally after a person has paid good money and signed up to the deal. There are stories of changes being imposed by owners on the use of the site's amenities without any reference to, or consultation with, residents. There are stories of excessive charges for utilities, and although the regulator has given guidance on that, I note that new clause 19, which was not selected, refers to that problem directly. 
 There are also stories of the demands by owners for commission payments when a resident wants to sell their park home to a new owner. That commission is legal and nothing can be done about it, but the owner is entitled to veto the choice of the person who will buy the home, and that can become a powerful tool to ensure that a decent-sized commission is paid for the transaction to go ahead. 
 Those kinds of problems were the reason why a working party on the sector came up with a set of reasonable recommendations. The Government issued a formal and positive response to that report, and we now see amendments that demonstrate what the Government accepted was faulty in law and needed to be changed. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for saying that she is prepared to make those changes. 
 I am also pleased to see that new clause 46 includes the provision for changing implied terms in the future through secondary legislation so that we do not have to mount great battles for new primary legislation each time we want changes. Of course, changes will happen in consultation with owners' representatives and residents' representations. All of that is welcome. 
 However, I have some concerns about the position of residents' associations and fit and proper conditions for the owners of the licences, as opposed to the conditions of the licences that relate to the land. I hope that we will be able to make progress on that in the not-to-distant future. I see that the Under-Secretary wants to wait for consultants' advice and the result of the Law Commission's work on new tenure before committing herself to final moves. There is a powerful lobby in this place for those issue not to be lost after today, and I am confident that we will return to them when we have the full information, and that we will make further changes later that will be important for those people. I think that today is a day for celebration and saying thank you. I hope that people around the country will be pleased that the Government have listened and responded positively.

Matthew Green: Committee members will notice that my name and those of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have been added to the new clauses tabled by Labour members of the all-party park home owners group. That is because we thoroughly support those new clauses and the changes that they make. The set of proposals under discussion is the Government's way of forestalling a Back-Bench rebellion in the Committee. The proposals are very welcome. Although they are not the whole loaf, I will be fair and say that they are more than half the loaf—they are three quarters of the loaf. The Government new clauses and amendments are all measures that we support.
 Park home sites have been discussed by hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, but the problems affect many constituencies throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross)—[Hon. Members: ''Where is he?'']—He is leading on the Fire and Rescue Services Bill and is probably speaking at this very moment. He is upset that he cannot be here, because park homes are major constituency issue for him. His constituency contains many parks, such as New Park in Bovey Tracey, Buckingham Orchard in Chudleigh Knighton and Pathfinder Village in Tedburn St. Mary. 
 There are a number of park home sites in my own constituency, and although I have not had a problem with particularly bad landlords, the park home groups in my constituency, particularly the Doddington Heights group, are active in seeking to get the law changed. That group has its own very well formed residents association, yet it has so far received no recognition as the Government want such associations to have. It consists of a responsible group of people who, although they have fairly good relations with their landlord, believe that many of these changes need to be made. They would obviously welcome the changes that the Government have proposed, but would like them to go further. 
 Doddington Heights is one example of cases in which I have been involved that highlight the need for recognition of residents associations. As I said, the Doddington Heights landlord is generally fairly good; 
 however, probably for financial reasons, the landlord ended the service whereby the caretaker would go round and collect the rubbish on Thursday—or whatever day it was—and put it at the entrance so that it could be picked up by the local authority. Now, the residents, many of whom are fairly elderly, must take their rubbish some distance to the collection point. Doddington Heights consists of about 100 homes on a hillside. I have attempted to get the local authority to go beyond its responsibility and to go on to the site, but its vehicles are too big to fit along the narrow driveways that characterise such sites. 
 That is exactly the sort of situation in which a properly constituted residents association could negotiate with the landlord. In addition, some sort of third-party appeal process is needed. The Government say that they accept the recommendations but that they are still consulting and will carry out more work. My question is: will anything happen? It has taken a long time to get to this stage, and the Under-Secretary's comments contained no future time scale. I am sure that the all-party park home owners group and many Labour Back Benchers will keep up the pressure on the Government, but the Government resisted the pressure for quite a long time before making the current set of proposals, and I am concerned that it may be many years before we see changes relating to residents associations. 
 I accept that new clause 29 is unnecessary—the Government's new clauses successfully cover its provisions. However, both new clause 27, on residents' associations, and new clause 28, on fit and proper persons, deal with live issues. Although the Government have said that they accept that, we wait to see whether they will deliver. I hope that, when summing up, the Under-Secretary will give some sort of time scale and commitment about when the consultation will finish. Clearly, we cannot prejudge what No. 10 will decide will be in the Queen's Speech, but if she was lucky enough to catch the ear of the Prime Minister and persuade him of the need for parliamentary time, would such legislation be ready in time for the next Queen's Speech? If the hon. Lady can provide any information, it would be welcome. I am not asking her to commit to something that she cannot commit to; I am simply asking whether that time scale is feasible. 
 The new clauses are welcome, and they successfully circumvent the need for any votes. I know that the three non-Government new clauses are not the lead ones, and therefore have not been moved, but I suspect that we would not have pressed them to a vote even though we have put our names to them. I would not want it to be thought that we were trying to block any of the Government new clauses—far from it—but we need more assurances from the Under-Secretary that there is more to come, and that it really will come and come soon.

Edward Davey: I shall be brief because my hon. Friend has made our case very well. I simply want to say well done to the Government. They have taken a step in the right direction that is extremely welcome to my constituents
 who live on the mobile home site called Riverhill. I do not have too many residents who live in that type of accommodation, but there are a number at Riverhill and they have experienced the problems that we have heard about both in today's debate and others on the work of the all-party group.
 New clause 48, which extends protection from harassment to occupiers of mobile homes, is exceedingly welcome. I have had some disturbing casework from Riverhill that suggests that bullying, both direct and indirect, does take place and can seriously reduce the quality of life of elderly and vulnerable people. The new clause is exceedingly welcome and I hope that it will get support from hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. I encourage the Government to go even further as quickly possible.

Yvette Cooper: I thank hon. Members on both sides for their support for the new clauses measures. They have wide support not simply in the House, but across the country and from a range of different stakeholder organisations.
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) asked a series of specific questions about residents associations, He asked how they should be constituted, what controls there should be on them, what kind of information should be provided for them, and so on. Those are important questions that need to be answered. It is because we are not yet in a position to provide detailed answers that we have not tabled amendments implementing such measures at this time. For example, it would be appropriate to provide all kinds of information to residents associations, including information on such things as car parking, but it could be of limited use to have information without the power to go to arbitration. That is why we need to determine a series of follow-on questions, many of which the hon. Gentleman rightly raised, about the nature of that arbitration and how a residents association should be constituted to ensure that it remains representative.

John Hayes: I endorse the view that the Government have dealt with some of the concerns expressed on Second Reading and elsewhere. Does the Under-Secretary envisage that the detail will be provided in further amendments to the Bill, or in secondary legislation?

Yvette Cooper: I think that primary legislation is the likely route for introducing statutory residents associations and setting up a statutory mechanism for arbitration, although it may be possible to do it through secondary legislation or non-legislative routes, and we shall consider doing so. We must be realistic about the limitations on being able to do that in the Bill: we have tabled amendments on the highest-priority issues that can be introduced most swiftly to make the greatest difference to park home residents. We accept that the Bill does not implement all the recommendations of the park homes working party and that we must do more work.
 We have already set in train further work on the question of fit and proper persons, because that requires detailed consideration. I cannot say today 
 what we mean by a fit and proper person in relation to park homes, which is why we have commissioned consultants to do the detailed research. An obvious starting point would seem to be the ''fit and proper person'' criteria in relation to HMOs, but it may have to be different for park home site owners. As I have said, the consultants carrying out that work and some of the work relating to site licensing expect to report back to us just after Easter. We will then be able to decide whether all the questions have been resolved or whether further work needs to be done and what the timetable for the consultation should be. I cannot say today what the timetable is likely to be.

John Hayes: I appreciate the Under-Secretary's difficulty. Does she think that the Bill cannot be amended because of the timetable that she has described and the possible difficulty of dealing with such fundamental issues in secondary legislation? Is there a possibility of introducing a small Bill to deal specifically with those issues?

Yvette Cooper: A private Member's Bill or one that also takes account of the Law Commission's review of tenure might be the right option. I cannot give the Committee specific detail at this stage. All that I can say is that we have dealt rapidly with the most important measures in response to the previous private Member's Bill and to concerns raised on Second Reading, and I pay tribute to the officials and parliamentary counsel who have acted rapidly to get us this far. We must be realistic about the further work that needs to be done. I cannot confirm the precise timetable at this stage. As I have said, we will have a further opportunity to consider future legislation based on our response to the Law Commission's proposals on tenure reform, because many of the issues relating to park homes are also tenure issues. However, we have not made any decisions on that.

John Hayes: The Under-Secretary has made it clear that she cannot reply to a number of specific questions that have been raised today and previously. We look forward to a time when she can do so in the most appropriate form. For now, will she confirm two things? First, will the local authority sites that are not currently subject to licence conditions because they are exempt be made subject to those conditions? Secondly, will she bear in mind the comments that were made during consideration of provisions about same-sex partner eligibility? New clause 47 affords same-sex partners the same type of rights as those earlier provisions did. There is some concern about people who share a home but are not in a relationship equivalent to marriage. Will the hon. Lady consider such cases so that such people are not disadvantaged by any changes? I do not want a great debate on that now, but it is important to bear in mind some of the points made by hon. Members of all parties about people who might be disadvantaged by changes.

Yvette Cooper: On the issue of same-sex partnerships, the measures ensure that we deal with discrimination in respect of this aspect of the Bill as we did in respect of succession rights. The purpose of the Bill is not to deal with all issues relating to same-sex partnerships: other legislation on that subject is being discussed, and other work is under way. It is right, however, that people who are partners in a relationship, whether a same-sex partnership or an opposite-sex partnership, should be treated in the same way. That is the purpose of the provisions.

Matthew Green: Does the Under-Secretary agree that if the Conservatives were to be consistent, they ought to vote against new clause 47?

Yvette Cooper: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Unfortunately, I was not here during the previous discussion about same-sex partnerships. I hope that Conservative Members might take the opportunity to affirm their strong support for treating same-sex partners fairly, as their leader has recently done. That would ensure consistency throughout their party. I see a certain amount of squirming on the Opposition Front Bench on the issue.

John Hayes: I do not want to get into a great debate—we have talked about this matter at great length, and there are more important things to deal with. During the earlier debate—I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not hear it—concerns were expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the way in which certain people might be disadvantaged. No part of the debate followed what might be described as stereotypical lines. We were simply concerned that people in arrangements that were not covered by these provisions, or the earlier ones, might be disadvantaged and examples were given.
 The debate on the earlier provisions related to family members. That is less applicable to the debate on the provisions before us, in which family members are included. A couple of friends, perhaps elderly spinsters, who were living together, might be faced with some difficulty, because they would not enjoy rights under the Government's proposals. I do not think that the Under-Secretary would want to disadvantage people who were not partners but were sharing a home. I want the hon. Lady to confirm that she will consider such cases. When the point was raised earlier, the Minister for Housing and Planning generously said that he was aware that good points had been made during the debate and the Government were sensitive to them. I hope that the Under-Secretary recognises that that question, and my other question about local authority sites—which I hope she will answer—were intended to be helpful.

Yvette Cooper: I know that hon. Members raised succession rights for siblings. The purpose of the provisions is not to change succession rights fundamentally or change the in which that they apply to the tenure in question. It will simply ensure that there is equal treatment for same-sex partners and
 opposite-sex partners. We are addressing that specific issue, and it is right that we do so. I heard the hon. Gentleman's point about the previous not being stereotypical. I trust, then, that we should not interpret his vote on earlier amendments, or his decision on whether to support the amendments before us, as stereotypical acts.
 Did the hon. Gentleman also raise a question about unlicensed sites? I did not entirely understand his question; it was something to do with local authority sites. Will he clarify? I am hoping for a bit of semaphore from the corner.

John Hayes: I was saying that local authority sites that are currently exempt should be licensed, and asking for clarification.

Yvette Cooper: Local authorities are themselves the licensing body, which is why they are treated differently in relation to model standards when issuing licences: they cannot issue licences to themselves. The site licensing provisions may well have to be introduced differently in relation to local authority sites. That must be considered as part of the consultants' work.

John Hayes: I do not want to labour the point, but as the Government are considering the issue seriously and are to introduce further measures that tighten up the law in a range of ways, it would be entirely inappropriate if such measures dealt with one type of site, but not another. The hon. Lady rightly draws attention to the present difficulty that local authorities do the licensing. We need to find a mechanism to deal with that. That was the point of my probing question.

Yvette Cooper: I am happy to ensure that issues around local authority sites are considered as part of the further work. Earlier, we discussed HMOs and different rented properties. The local authority rented sector is treated differently from the private rented sector, and it is right that different arrangements apply. However, we can ensure that issues around local authority sites are properly considered as part of the further work that we do on park homes.
 I hope that the Committee will support the new clauses. They are important, and, as hon. Members have said, they take an important step forward and allow us to give greater protection for those who need it. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 45 - Implied terms relating to termination of agreements or disposal of mobile homes

'(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) (terms implied in site agreements) is amended as follows. 
 (2) In paragraph 6 (termination by owner on ground of detrimental effect resulting from age and condition of mobile home)— 
 (a) omit ''age and''; and 
 (b) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
 ''(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) below apply if, on an application under sub-paragraph (1) above— 
 (a) the court considers that, having regard to the present condition of the mobile home, paragraph (a) or (b) of that sub-paragraph applies to it, but 
 (b) it also considers that it would be reasonably practicable for particular repairs to be carried out on the mobile home that would result in neither of those paragraphs applying to it, and 
 (c) the occupier indicates that he intends to carry out those repairs. 
 (4) In such a case the court may make an order adjourning proceedings on the application for such period specified in the order as the court considers reasonable to allow the repairs to be carried out. 
 The repairs must be set out in the order. 
 (5) If the court makes such an order, the application shall not be further proceeded with unless the court is satisfied that the specified period has expired without the repairs having been carried out.'' 
 (3) In paragraph 8 (sale of mobile home to person approved by owner)— 
 (a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert— 
 ''(1A) If— 
 (a) the occupier requests the owner to approve a person for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above, and 
 (b) the owner fails to notify the occupier within the response period that he either is or is not approving that person for those purposes, 
 the occupier may apply to the court for an order declaring that the person is approved for those purposes; and the court may make such an order if it thinks fit. 
 (1B) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A) above — 
 (a) ''request'' or ''notify'' means request or notify in writing; and 
 (b) ''the response period'' means the period of 28 days beginning with the date when the owner receives the occupier's request; 
 and any request or notification may be sent by post.''; 
 (b) in sub-paragraph (2) for ''the Secretary of State'' substitute ''the appropriate national authority''; and 
 (c) in sub-paragraph (3)(a) after ''which'' insert ''(if made by the Secretary of State)''. 
 (4) After the existing provisions of paragraph 9 (gift of mobile home to person approved by owner), which become sub-paragraph (1), insert— 
 ''(2) Sub-paragraphs (1A) and (1B) of paragraph 8 above shall apply where the occupier requests the owner to approve a person for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above as they apply where the occupier requests the owner to approve a person for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.'' 
 (5) The amendments made by this section apply in relation to an agreement to which the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) applies that was made before the day on which this section comes into force (''the appointed day''), as well as in relation to one made on or after that day. 
 Any reference in this subsection to the making of an agreement to which that Act applies includes a reference to any variation of an agreement by virtue of which the agreement becomes one to which that Act applies. 
 (6) However— 
 (a) the amendments made by subsection (2) do not apply in relation to any application made before the appointed day for the purposes of paragraph 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to that Act; and 
 (b) the amendments made by subsection (3) or (4) do not apply in relation to any request for approval made before the appointed day for the purposes of paragraph 8 or (as the case may be) paragraph 9 of that Schedule.'. 
 —[Yvette Cooper.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. 
 New Clause 46Power to amend terms implied in site agreements

Power to amend terms implied in site agreements

'(1) 'After section 2 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) insert— 
 ''2A Power to amend implied terms 
 (1) The appropriate national authority may by order make such amendments of Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act as the authority considers appropriate. 
 (2) An order under this section— 
 (a) shall be made by statutory instrument; 
 (b) may make different provision with respect to different cases or descriptions of case, including different provision for different areas; 
 (c) may contain such incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional or saving provisions as the authority making the order considers appropriate. 
 (3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2), an order under this section may— 
 (a) make provision for or in connection with the determination by the court of such questions, or the making by the court of such orders, as are specified in the order; 
 (b) make such amendments of any provision of this Act as the authority making the order considers appropriate in consequence of any amendment made by the order in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1. 
 (4) The first order made under this section in relation to England or Wales respectively may provide for all or any of its provisions to apply in relation to agreements to which this Act applies that were made at any time before the day on which the order comes into force (as well as in relation to such agreements made on or after that day). 
 (5) No order may be made by the appropriate national authority under this section unless the authority has consulted— 
 (a) such organisations as appear to it to be representative of interests substantially affected by the order; and 
 (b) such other persons as it considers appropriate. 
 (6) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'' 
 (2) For the purposes of subsection (5) of the section 2A inserted by this section, consultation undertaken before the date of the passing of this Act constitutes as effective compliance with that subsection as if undertaken on or after that date.'. 
 —[Yvette Cooper.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 47 - Succession to site agreements by same sex partners

'In section 3(3)(a)(ii) of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) (successors in title) after ''member of the deceased's family'' insert ''or a person who is of the same sex as the deceased and was living together with the deceased in a relationship equivalent to that of husband and wife''.'.—[Yvette Cooper.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 48 - Extension of protection from harassment for occupiers of mobile homes

'(1) Section 3 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 (c.52) (protection of occupiers against eviction and harassment) is amended as follows.
 (2) In subsection (1) (offence where person, with the specified intent, does acts calculated to interfere with the peace or comfort of the occupier etc.)for ''calculated to interfere'' substitute ''likely to interfere''. 
 (3) After subsection (1) insert— 
 ''(1A) Subject to the provisions of this section, the owner of a protected site or his agent shall be guilty of an offence under this section if, whether during the subsistence or after the expiration or determination of a residential contract— 
 (a) he does acts likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the occupier or persons residing with him, or 
 (b) he persistently withdraws or withholds services or facilities reasonably required for the occupation of the caravan as a residence on the site, 
 and (in either case) he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, that that conduct is likely to cause the occupier to do any of the things mentioned in subsection (1)(c)(i) or (ii) of this section. 
 (1B) References in subsection (1A) of this section to the owner of a protected site include references to a person with an estate or interest in the site which is superior to that of the owner.'' 
 (4) In subsection (3) (penalties for offences), for the words from ''be liable'' onwards substitute ''be liable— 
 (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to both; 
 (b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to both.'' 
 (5) After subsection (4) insert— 
 ''(4A) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1A) of this section it shall be a defence to prove that the accused had reasonable grounds for doing the acts or withdrawing or withholding the services or facilities in question.'' 
 (6) The amendments made by this section do not apply in relation to any conduct occurring before the day on which this section comes into force. 
 (7) In the case of an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44) comes into force, the amendment made by subsection (4) has effect as if for ''12 months'' there were substituted ''6 months''.'. 
 —[Yvette Cooper.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1 - Tenancy deposit scheme (compulsory)

'The appropriate national authority will by order introduce a mandatory tenancy deposit scheme within 12 months of the implementation of this Part, subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses.'.—[Mr. Edward Davey.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Edward Davey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 26—Tenancy Deposit Scheme— 
 '(1) Where a landlord requires payment of a deposit in relation to any premises occupied as a dwelling under a tenancy, the occupier must pay that deposit into the Deposit Scheme unless subsection (2) applies. 
 (2) Landlords, or their appointed agents, who are members of national self-regulated bodies that are bonded by insurance schemes approved by the appropriate national authority may request in writing the payment of any deposit lawfully demanded directly to themselves. 
 (3) Where subsection (2) applies, the occupier must pay the deposit directly to their landlord, upon which the landlord must provide a written receipt.
 (4) Any dispute between the landlord and the occupier over the return of the deposit is to be resolved by independent adjudication. 
 (5) The appropriate national authority may by regulations specify— 
 (a) The terms, conditions and management of the Deposit Scheme; 
 (b) Approved bodies and schemes under subsection (2); 
 (c) The mechanisms and procedures to be followed under subsection (A). 
 (6) The appropriate national authority may by regulations specify that a failure to adhere to such sections of this Part as it sees fit constitutes acts or omissions for the purposes of section 211(2) of the Enterprise Act 2002.'. 
New clause 49—Tenancy deposit scheme— 
 'The appropriate national authority will by order introduce a tenancy deposit scheme to be reviewed annually.'.

Edward Davey: This is a long awaited debate, in which we hope that the Government will be as open-minded as they were on park homes. The Minister will know that many of his Back Bench colleagues support the proposal for a tenancy deposit scheme, and he will also have noted that, with the tabling of their amendment, the Conservatives appear to have decided that they support such a scheme. It seems that on all sides of the Committee there is momentum behind the idea. From listening to the Minister and his colleagues both in formal debate and in private, I know that the Minister is supportive of the idea. The Parliamentary Private Secretary is shaking his head, but I think that the Minister has a mind of his own and is keen on the proposals.
 The arguments have been well made. Tenants need to have their funds protected, because the deposits are their money, and many tenants on low incomes get badly hit when a small number of landlords abuse the deposit system. However, there are arguments in favour of a tenancy deposit scheme from landlords' perspective too. Some landlords' refusal to return deposits without good reason has produced bad behaviour by tenants, who do not expect to get their deposit back and so do not look after the property that they are renting. 
 I believe that the scheme fits nicely into the Bill, because the Government's intention is to upgrade and improve the quality and standard of the private rented sector. A tenancy deposit scheme links into that aim, as it would play a major role in improving the status of the private rented sector and would, I hope, lead to an increase in its size. We all realise that that is one of the surest and soundest ways to deal with the problem of the lack of affordable housing. 
 The arguments are strong and appear to be accepted on all sides. The Under-Secretary said in a debate last year: 
 ''I recognise the wide range of support on this issue, and we all agree that there is a problem that must be resolved. We also agree that a voluntary approach does not work.''—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 15 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 120WH.] 
Ministers are on the record acknowledging that the Government should address the issue. The debate needs to focus on getting the Government on the record on a number of detailed points, leading them to 
 accept the clauses in the group before us, or to commit themselves amendments at a later stage or separate legislation. 
 I have a few direct questions for the Minister. First, can the Minister say—on the record—whether the Government support the introduction of a tenancy deposit scheme in principle? They are, in principle, in favour of joining the euro, and of many other things, and we want to make sure that they have decided on the principle of the schemes. That would be a great help. If the answer is yes, as I hope it will be, will the right hon. Gentleman then say whether the Government are committed to introducing detailed legislative proposals to implement such a scheme in the future? Are they going to do anything? We know that they occasionally have problems with timetables, but are they going to say that they will come forward with proposals of their own? 
 Let us be more specific: do they have a timetable in mind? Will such legislation be in the next Queen's Speech or do they have some other device to ensure that it is forthcoming? Do they have any idea of when they will get around to the measure? They appear to have linked action to the concluding report of the Law Commission. Does that mean that the timetable is inextricably linked to the workings of the Law Commission? I am sure that colleagues on all sides will have read briefings from Shelter and others, including the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, in which the case is strongly made that, on this issue, there is no direct link with the work of the Law Commission. The Government appear to be hiding behind that, but there is no logic in their stance. As I said earlier, logic dictates that the measure we propose should be in the Bill, since it relates to regulating the private rented sector. If Ministers are trying to create such a link, they need to be more persuasive than they have been hitherto. 
 If the Government are beginning to agree to a timetable in principle, perhaps the Minister can enlighten us on their thinking about the details of the scheme. He is hardly likely to set it out in detail, but I am sure that he has put his mind to the fundamental matter of how the funds would be held. There are two alternatives for a deposit scheme, which have been aired by different groups: either the landlord would retain the funds, and disputes would be settled by independent arbitration in which the arbitrator would have the power, outside of the small claims court procedures and normal judicial processes, to require the landlord to pay; or the funds would be held from the beginning of the tenancy by a third party. 
 I cannot believe that the Minister has not given some thought to that fundamental design question. If he is thinking of the timetable, he should at least share his thoughts. We hope that he will accept the new clause, as it is not a probing amendment. We want to work with the Government; we do not want to be churlish. They are moving in the right direction and we want to encourage them, teasing out their thoughts so that we can debate the details of the scheme in the House and not just subcontract it to the Law Commission. 
 I am conscious that many colleagues wish to speak on the subject. Many Labour colleagues feel strongly about it and have signed early-day motions, and I look forward to them joining in the debate and persuading their Front-Bench colleagues that it is time to move. If we had to wait for the Law Commission, how many years would it be before we saw any legislation? How many more tenants would have their deposits unreasonably withheld? How many landlords would see their properties trashed by tenants acting on a perverse incentive because they did not expect to see their deposits returned? The proposal favours all sides of the private rented sector. It is time that the Government acted, and I hope that they will listen to the will of the House.

Robert Syms: This is a matter of concern and it is useful to debate it in Committee. Our new clause 49 is different as it would involve a voluntary rather than a mandatory scheme, but it is possible that a voluntary scheme could have targeted, statutory regulation underpinning it. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) made it clear that arbitration is important.
 In Poole, where a voluntary scheme has been running for several years, in six years I have never had anyone come to my surgery moaning that they have not had their deposit back. There is an arbitration system with the local rent service which works well. A voluntary scheme would be better with perhaps a national template or legislation on the side of arbitration to ensure that matters were dealt in a common manner throughout the country. 
 From the perspective of landlords, we should remember that the average HMO tenant stays in the property for 18 months, and inevitably there is wear and tear and damage. For many landlords it is important to get some money as a deposit so that the standing of an individual is known, and because tenants sometimes disappear leaving their rent in arrears. Many landlords would not stay in the industry if they could not obtain a deposit, so it plays its part in the provision of property.

Edward Davey: If there were a tenancy deposit scheme, in all the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes that money would go back to the landlords, so I cannot see his problem.

Robert Syms: Our view is that a voluntary scheme is better. We must also remember that deposits are paid only 70 per cent. of the time. There is a part of the market where no deposits are paid. Some of the most vulnerable people in society cannot afford deposits, and there are landlords who let property to them.
 As the law stands, there are examples in certain parts of the country of voluntary schemes working well. As legislators, we ought first to go down the route of a voluntary contribution. The incidence of wrongful withholding is still relatively low, although that is significant for the tenants who are affected, which is why people go to citizens advice bureaux. Voluntary 
 measures can work well, but there must be some targeted statutory regulation to underpin them so that disputes can be dealt with. 
 It is important to understand that third-party accounts would increase regulation, bureaucracy and cost. Who does that cost fall on—all the tenants, or the landlord? A compulsory scheme with a system of third-party accounts could also lead to delays in the return of money. We should think very carefully before we go down the statutory route. A voluntary route is better, and it is possible to design a scheme that works well but with a degree of modest statutory underpinning in terms of arbitration.

Clive Betts: I hope that we will make progress on this matter, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. The best that we can hope for is that he will express a lot of sympathy—without a lot of tea—particularly about new clause 26, which I tabled, and that he will go on to explain in detail how some of its drafting is defective. However, he might surprise me by accepting every word, although it is unfortunate that the new clause has not been before the parliamentary draftsmen, because they are the bastions of good practice in this place, and they have never drafted a defective clause, so we know that we can rely on them when we cannot rely on others.
 I thank Shelter for advising me on this matter. It has led an important campaign—along with the Consumers Association, the National Union of Students and citizens advice bureaux—to get the issue into the forefront of debate and to ensure that we make progress on it. I share the hope of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton that the Minister will at the very least announce that the Government support the principle of introducing a tenancy deposit scheme. We can then have a discussion about when that might happen, and if and when we address the details of the new clause the Government might even suggest the route that they will go down. 
 The new clause offers an excellent and clever way forward. There is the reserve of a deposit scheme that landlords will pay into, but if landlords are members of a self-regulated body that is approved by the appropriate national authority they will be able to keep the deposit because they will be properly bonded by insurance. Tenants will be able to rely on that fall-back, and in the event of a landlord disappearing overnight—which is one of the accusations that tenants make against some landlords—at least their money can be returned. The entire proposal is also underpinned by the independent adjudication. 
 This matter is about the balance of power in housing. We are dealing with many vulnerable and poor tenants. They have recourse to the small claims court but they do not really understand it, and when they are faced with the law and filling in complicated forms, they will not deal with such problems. They will simply feel aggrieved that their deposit has not been returned in full. They may believe that the landlord's wear and tear estimates are completely over the top, but they will not pursue their rights in law. 
 Twenty per cent. of tenants who are asked say that some or all of their deposit has been unreasonably withheld. That figure may not be a reflection of actual fact. Some tenants may feel that the deposit has been unreasonably withheld when it has not, but at present there is little testing of tenants' concerns because the current arrangements are not convenient or easy to use. That is why independent adjudication is so important. 
 The south-east Sheffield citizens advice bureau, which is in my constituency, has given me further information and advice. I ought to declare an interest, as I am the president of that body. My interest is in supporting and promoting the excellent work that it does on behalf of my constituents. I received a letter from the deputy manager, Ms Gillian Bramall. She makes an important point that echoes that made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton when she states: 
 ''It is an issue that affects all in the private rental market, from vulnerable tenants on low incomes to students to young professionals and families, and it damages the reputation of all private sector landlords.'' 
The Government are committed to developing, restoring and promoting the private housing sector. A scheme such as this would reassure tenants and let them know from the beginning that the deposit that they hand over will not suddenly disappear for no good reason at the end of their tenancy. That would restore faith and confidence in the private rented sector and benefit the sector as a whole. It is important to understand that the proposal is not just about tenants but about the way in which the private rented sector is perceived. 
 Ms Bramall reasonably points out that it is quite amazing in this day and age that there is no regulation about how landlords should hold on to the money, how quickly deposits should be returned at the end of a tenancy or who should benefit from the interest. There is no requirement for the landlord to provide an inventory or written statement declaring what the deposit is held against, and there is no independent adjudication. Those major factors, which are missing from the current arrangements, must be included in any national scheme. 
 The scheme must be compulsory. The Conservatives say that a voluntary scheme might work. As the Minister knows, the pilot voluntary scheme for tenancy deposits has been shown to work only for the small number of tenants who have landlords who decide to join it. That is a crucial issue. As the evidence given to the Select Committee by private sector representatives indicated, the pilot was worth while because it proved that tenancy deposit protection would work through either of the two methods in my new clause. The conclusion from the pilot was that a scheme would work, but a voluntary scheme would not. 
 Where do we go from here? Lord Falconer, when he was the Minister for Housing, Planning and Regeneration, said that there was a strong case for legislation. This Minister sent out slightly different signals when he came before the Select Committee and said that it was an open matter and that the issue was 
 still being considered. I hope that on reflection he has accepted that there is an overwhelming case for introducing a scheme. Information provided by Shelter shows that the benefits of such a scheme could be three times the £20 million that the Government estimate—nearer to £60 million. Because the benefits realised from the voluntary scheme were taken from landlords who were likely to be better landlords because they had joined the scheme, the real benefits, far from being similar to the costs, would be greater. 
 Another reasonable point made by Shelter is that having a scheme could reduce the number of claims because landlords would behave better in the knowledge that the scheme was in place. Therefore, the £19 million quote for costs is probably a significant overestimate. The evidence from countries such as Australia and New Zealand, where schemes are in place, demonstrates that only 2 or 3 per cent. of tenancy deposits come before the adjudication process because the existence of the scheme deters landlords from misbehaving. 
 How should we proceed? The Minister might suggest parliamentary time. We have done so much work and gathered so much information from the pilot and discussions in the Select Committee and elsewhere that it should not be impossible to insert a clause in the Bill at some point in its parliamentary process. The Minister might say that the Law Commission is reviewing tenancy and arrangements between different sectors. That is right, but the Law Commission was not asked to deal with tenancy deposit schemes; they are not in its remit. 
 Do we really have to wait? Let us say that we get legislation on the Law Commission proposals in this Session. We may get it back into Parliament after the next general election. In the meantime, we could have two or three more years of unsatisfactory arrangements in the private rented sector, even though we could add something to this Bill with little difficulty. I hope that the Minister considers that. If there is agreement in principle—which I hope there is as there is so much evidence that a scheme can work, helping tenants and promoting the whole of the private rented sector—I hope that he will say yes, while also saying that we can do something more quickly than the Law Commission. If he is not prepared to accept any of the new clauses, I hope that he will table a new clause later to introduce this important measure into legislation as quickly as possible.

Sally Keeble: I want briefly to add my support to the proposals for a national rent deposit scheme, which needs to be introduced sooner rather than later. Particular pressures make such a measure increasingly important, certainly in my own patch of Northampton.
 First, house prices have gone up sharply. One of the options for many people in my area who were in a council property and needed a housing transfer, or simply wanted to move, was to buy a property: properties were reasonably cheap and most people 
 were in work. Because of the increase in house prices, that equation has changed, and home ownership is no longer an option for people moving out of social housing. There are also other pressures on social housing, and we have a growing student body in need of rented housing. 
 Many of the people who would particularly value and appreciate a scheme such as this are not the very poorest. They are not those on housing benefit who are moving into accommodation; quite often they are in work, but the deposit is a substantial amount of money, and the real issue is that they might lose it, hindering their ability to move on. If they are saving to buy, that will be a deduction from the deposit on the property. Colleagues have mentioned the fact that an element of tit for tat is then introduced into the relationship between landlord and tenant. People might say, ''I just won't pay my rent for a couple of months at the end of the tenancy, and that will deal with part of the problem.'' 
 I would argue that a scheme is needed. Colleagues have provided all the information from the pilots, Shelter and citizens advice bureaux. The changes in the housing market, which I suspect will be long standing, are another reason to introduce such a measure. However, it is important that it is carefully worked out. I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton does not press his new clause to a vote, because I would vote against it. It is important that the Government introduce properly worked out and carefully thought through proposals, which can properly be put into place.

Edward Davey: If the hon. Lady looks at the new clause, she will see that it is not prescriptive in any way and just gives the Government powers to introduce the scheme once they have had a chance to consult. We are proposing exactly what she wants.

Sally Keeble: I understand that enabling legislation can be useful, but if we want the full details of a workable scheme set out, it is important that the officials who have to implement it have a proper role in drawing up the proposals. If the hon. Gentleman does press the new clause, I shall vote against it, but in the strong hope that, with emerging pressure, proposals will come from the Government.

Matthew Green: I shall respond first to the point raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble). Let us suppose that there were a vote, and that the Labour Back Benchers who signed the early-day motion—or, in three cases, tabled the excellent new clause—voted with us, and the Conservatives and the Government lost. Although the new clause may still be imperfect, I am sure that the Government would be minded rapidly to introduce stuff that would work. We would be only too happy to work with them in those circumstances. The fact that this may not be a perfect new clause is a poor reason not to vote for it. That is a purely technical excuse to
 allow Members to get out of voting for an opportunity to introduce a tenancy deposit scheme. That is the situation in which the hon. Lady may find herself.

Sally Keeble: As somebody who did not sign the early-day motion but is keen on the measure, I think that there is an issue about how such measures are introduced and how we go about providing a scheme that will work to everybody's benefit. I do not care what anybody else does; I am confident that I want these critical measures developed in such a way that they properly protect tenants, and civil servants are probably in the best position to draft such measures.

Matthew Green: I acknowledge that the hon. Lady has not signed the early-day motion or attached her name to the new clause. I was putting my comments in broad terms, in case any of her colleagues were similarly minded. I suspect that, in the hon. Lady's time as a Minister, she let the civil servants get to her too much; she seems too much a fan of them. A big problem with Ministers is that they rapidly go native, and follow their civil servants blindly.

David Kidney: If this is a good new clause that we should all support, will the hon. Gentleman explain something for me? Is he saying that we must have a scheme within 12 months, or that such a scheme must be passed by affirmative procedure in both Houses? If he is saying both—and that is the way that the new clause reads—does it mean that if there were secondary legislation for us to vote on, we would all have to vote yes?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. My point was that even if the Committee passed a new clause that was not technically perfect, we would be only too happy to talk to the Government about perfect arrangements that would meet their approval. We do not have the benefit of parliamentary draftsmen, and the issue of whether the new clause is perfect is not a reason not to vote for it.
 On the tenancy deposit scheme, the citizens advice bureaux have been mentioned, and I want to read from a letter from Jane Harrison, the manager of Bridgnorth and district CAB, which is my local bureau. She has written to me in the past, and I have then written in turn to the Minister, and there has been correspondence backwards and forwards between us. Jane Harrison's most recent letter to me on the subject of tenancy deposit schemes is dated 3 February. It is in response to a letter from the Minister to me, and says: 
 ''I am sad that the . . . Minister of State for Housing and Planning seems to be looking at this matter as simply a contractual issue between landlord and tenant which he feels can be rectified by seeking redress through the courts. What the minister seems to have failed to grasp is that this issue most involves those most in need in our society, who often have no access to housing other than through the private rented sector. A tenancy deposit of £400''— 
which is quite common in my area— 
''may represent a decent meal for two in a London restaurant but it may involve over seven week's income to a person on benefit. The amounts retained by Landlords represent a huge sum of money to the majority of tenants. The tenants are often those most deprived in our society who through economic and educational disadvantage are least able to access justice through the courts. 
This matter is particularly difficult for those in rural areas, where a trip to the local County Court may involve a two-hour journey on four buses. These tenants need the protection of the law. As do Landlords whose tenants wrongfully avoid payment of final months' rent to recover the deposit which may legitimately be withheld by their Landlord. The Government has not in the past hesitated to interfere in contractual relationships, particularly where they feel that there is unequal bargaining power, as in the case of employment and consumer contracts.'' 
She makes a strong point, but those who tend to lose their deposits are not always the poorest in society: they may be in social housing or have other means. 
 The hardest hit group of tenants is young people, often aged between 18 and 25, because they are the most mobile: tenants who move house regularly lose the most money. If one puts down a deposit and lives in the same house for 20 years, that deposit, if withheld unreasonably by the landlord, will be a pretty small amount in real terms 20 years later, but if a person moves house every six months and loses their deposit every six months, that adds up to a considerable sum. That tends to affect young people, who are the most mobile and who often need the money for access to a car or to get a job. There are many reasons why they are hit hardest. The Government have a tendency to view young people as problems and not to offer them solutions. The Bill gives them an opportunity to offer young people a solution to a problem that affects them regularly. 
 I hope that the Minister does not say that the Bill is not the vehicle for this scheme. The Leader of the House, in his evidence to the Select Committee, said that 
''if . . . as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny some valuable recommendations were made from the Select Committee that the Department saw as improving the Bill and was happy to take forward and that lengthened it a bit, then I do not think that is going to jeopardise the Bill.'' 
The Minister may want to disagree with the Leader of the House, but I hope that he will not do so, because I am sure that he will want to show us that he is considering accepting the new clause. 
 Previous Ministers have prayed in aid the Law Commission as a reason for not taking immediate action, but it is worth quoting its response. Paragraph 1.85 of the 2002 consultation paper specifically states: 
 ''The question of whether or not tenancy deposits should be regulated, and if so how—an issue covered in the legislation of many Commonwealth jurisdictions—is not considered here.'' 
The Law Commission makes it absolutely clear that it is not considering tenancy deposit regulation, so I hope that the Minister does not pray in aid that body. I am confident that he is keen that such a scheme should be introduced, and we seek an assurance from him on that. 
 I was disappointed, although perhaps not surprised, to hear yet another policy U-turn by Conservative Members, as I thought they were in favour of the tenancy deposit scheme. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), when shadowing the Deputy Prime Minister before the last leadership changeover, committed the party to supporting the tenancy deposit scheme, saying that the Housing Bill was the ''natural vehicle'' for a scheme to protect tenants from what can amount to ''legalised 
 theft''. Clearly the Conservative party now wants to move from dealing with ''legalised theft'' to something that is voluntary. 
 I hope that Conservative Members can tell us when, between now and the autumn of last year, which I believe was the last time that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden spoke on this subject, their policy changed. Clearly they have shifted ground. When did that happen? I hope that it is an accidental shift and that they will rapidly return to supporting a compulsory scheme, as they did six months ago, that they will keep up the pressure on the Government and that, should we decide to press the new clause to a vote, they will be minded to support it, as other members of the Conservative Front Bench would be if they were present. 
 I know that we have a reasonable Minister dealing with this matter, and I know that he will want to have at heart the concerns of tenants and landlords, and to encourage the private rented sector to deliver more homes. This is exactly the sort of scheme that will encourage the expansion of the private rented sector. It will stop private landlords having a bad name with tenants: as we have heard, the 20 per cent. who are bad landlords or have caused problems with deposits give a bad name to all private landlords. It will encourage people into the sector, both as landlords and as tenants. I would be surprised if the Minister did not support the scheme in principle, and I look forward to his detailed timetable showing when the Government will introduce it.

Alan Whitehead: The Liberal Democrat proposal reflects the well known Eastleigh airport problem, which occurred near my constituency. The Liberal Democrats in north Eastleigh issued focus leaflets locally saying that the planes from Southampton Eastleigh airport should take off to the south while the Liberal Democrats in south Eastleigh put out leaflets saying that the planes should take off to the north. They were members of the same party, in the same borough, and the same heading was on the leaflets.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet) (Con) rose—

Peter Pike: Order. Let us not stray too far from the subject.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) puts on record a feature of politics today, which is that one goes the way the wind blows.

Alan Whitehead: I think that one should go the way the aircraft take off, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
 I raise the issue because new clause 1 is essentially a Henry VIII clause to allow the Government to do something that is not included in the Bill, but which they might consider doing at a future date. Henry VIII was keen on such legislation because it allowed him to do roughly what he wanted, regardless of the protests 
 of wives, courtiers or others. As far as I recall, the Liberal Democrats have vociferously opposed such clauses in other legislation and other circumstances. The Government included such clauses in the Local Government Act 2000 and the clauses were condemned mightily by the Liberal Democrats as paving the way for unaccountable legislation that was not properly formed or thought out and which would lead to catastrophe. 
 In general, Henry VIII clauses are not a good way of legislating. They may be a useful rhetorical device, but as far as legislation is concerned, they are not the way forward.

Edward Davey: When did Henry VIII require his legislation to be subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament?

Alan Whitehead: The point about Henry VIII's Parliament is that it mainly gave affirmative resolutions, which it did for very good reasons and precisely because it was concerned about the Henry VIII clauses.
 We must it bear in mind that Henry VIII clauses are not a good way of legislating when we consider our position on a tenancy deposit system. I am entirely with the idea that it is time to have a tenancy deposit scheme. I think that for a number of reasons, many of which have been rehearsed before the Committee. I am concerned in particular about a statistic that might startle hon. Members: 22 per cent. of the population in this country have no assets whatever. The only asset some people in rented accommodation have is the deposit that they have scraped up for their tenancy. That is essentially a rolling asset, which is applied to the next tenancy when the previous tenancy expires. Although we are not talking about a huge number of people, the loss of such a tenancy deposit through illegal or nefarious means is not just unfortunate, but a complete catastrophe for those people as far as their ability to negotiate their way into their next tenancy is concerned. 
 I applaud the work of churches and other organisations in Southampton that have got together to run a tenancy bond scheme and a voluntary tenancy deposit scheme with some landlords. It has worked well, but as hon. Members said, it is only the landlords who want it to work who have made it work. To some extent, that reflects on the possible high estimate of the cost benefit scheme that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) mentioned earlier. He suggested that if a tenancy deposit scheme were to operate, the recidivism in it would be much lower. 
 I thoroughly support the idea of a scheme. I suspect that the devil is in the detail when it comes to ensuring that the arbitration system works well. The arrangements should be fair to tenants and landlords. There are times when a landlord feels unjustly treated, such as when tenants leave in the middle of the night. They know they will not get their deposit back and they do not want to be held accountable for effectively wrecking, and on occasions maliciously wrecking, the 
 premises. It is important to get the process right so that it is fair to all parties, works well, is transparent and can sustain itself over a long time. 
 It is important to get the details right. That might take a little time to sort out. I hope hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will support such a scheme and that there is a way to provide it. That should not be done through a Henry VIII clause, however. We have to consider whether we can introduce it in a clause inserted at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings or in separate legislation. We would have to consider the detail required, which should be properly examined before legislation is passed. I support the principle behind the proposal. I think it has almost universal support in the Committee and I hope that that can be converted into a real scheme, brought about by legislation in the not-too-distant future.

Vera Baird: I rise to speak with great shyness because, as hon. Members will have observed, I was not here at the outset of the debate, although I was here for all my hon. Friends' speeches and support in principle what they advocated. I apologise for my absence and promise hon. Members that I was not at the pictures; rather, I was taking part in a debate in Westminster Hall on a matter in which I have taken a great deal of interest.
 I am anxious because I have received correspondence from the citizens advice bureau in Redcar and Cleveland. Based on its long experience, it urges me to support a tenancy deposit scheme. As I understand it, a 1998 CAB report ''Unsafe Deposit'' gave rise to the pilot voluntary scheme that we have discussed. I also pay tribute to the Teesside housing action group, based in Redcar. Earlier, in the context of a Westminster Hall debate, it told me that it finds, on a day-to-day basis, that its tenants are—as it puts it—frequently ripped off by landlords. I give that group all the support it merits in advocating the principle of a compulsory tenancy deposit scheme. 
 Both groups approached me from a tenant's point of view, and I echo what my hon. Friends said. It is good for the private rented sector to have such a clear and firm set-up as a properly planned tenancy deposit scheme. Tenants are used to not getting their deposit back and there is undoubtedly the problem that they tend not to pay rent for the last couple of months to forestall the impact on their finances if what they expect to happen does happen. That is bad for landlords—good ones, as well as the bad. 
 I was in Committee just in time to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe list the lack of regulations on how deposits are dealt with. He said that they are important factors and that clarity is necessary. I agree with him. As a lawyer, I regard it as a current difficulty that the remedies for a tenant whose deposit has been taken away are difficult to pursue. The tenant would have to go to the small claims track at the county court. In a town such as Redcar, deposits are often about £50 or £100, depending on the size of the property. The minimum fee in the small claims 
 track is £50. If the landlord is brought to court by that means, which is not always the case, confrontation will follow. 
 If a judgment is given, there is a further fee for enforcing it if the claim is not paid, so tenants' deposits are cost-ineffective moneys to get back when they have been wrongly kept. It worries me greatly that the sector is vulnerable. I appreciate that the middle-ranking tenancies suffer, too, but the lower-ranking sector has become used to putting up with being ill treated and has no way of acquiring rights. We must not tolerate that. 
 I do not like the new clause and shall not vote for it. It is wholly inappropriate to set out a system in a one-line, swingeing statement that would have to be planned with extreme care and for which the devil is in the detail. However, I agree with my hon. Friends and urge the Minister to take positive and quick action. It is a good cause and I am confident that he will support it.

Sydney Chapman: The new clauses are variations on a theme. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee accept that a tenant deposit scheme should be introduced. It would not be before time and I subscribe to the general view.
 New clause 1, moved the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, followed by the hon. Member for Ludlow, is a definite, set-in-concrete proposal, which I find difficult to support. In all fairness, I accept that the Liberal Democrats want us to adopt their radical new clause because they think that the Government will move at a leisurely pace if we do not. However, I do not share the view of the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on the issue. 
 The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe spoke to new clause 26. He specifically laid down a reasonable set of conditions that should apply when introducing a tenant deposit scheme. I thought that the hon. Member for Ludlow was a little unfair on my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. 
 New clause 49 seems entirely acceptable. It does not say that the scheme should necessarily be mandatory. If I interpret my hon. Friend the Member for Poole correctly, he actually spoke in terms of a voluntary scheme, at least initially, and I think that this is sensible. I do not see any gap between what my hon. Friend said and what colleagues have said on the Floor of the House. I must not stray, but the Committee will recall that when we dealt with part 5, on home information packs, we expressed grave reservations and said that if the Government were minded to go ahead with them, they should at least be introduced on a voluntary basis. I accept in principle that there must be a tenancy deposit scheme; the question is how it should be introduced. I agree with my hon. Friend that it should be voluntary at first. 
 Under new clause 49, 
''the appropriate national authority will by order introduce a tenancy deposit scheme to be reviewed annually.''
After it has been reviewed—or perhaps after two or three years—we will see how the system is working and will be able to iron out any problems. Then, I am sure we will be happy to make it mandatory. That is the line of my thinking, and I am now agog to hear what the Minister has to say.

Keith Hill: This has, at least so far, been a good, constructive debate. It is conventional to say that sort of thing in the House, but I mean it. The Government are extremely sympathetic to the sentiments that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides in the debate. In the course of my response—which will be lengthy, as this is a very serious issue—I intend to demonstrate to the Committee that the Government are taking this issue very seriously.
 I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for Southampton, Test and to my hon. and learned Friend the member for Redcar for their support for a well thought out scheme, whose details are set out as fully as possible in primary legislation. I intend to revert to that subject in the course of my remarks. 
 My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe and for Southampton, Test and, initially, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked some very direct questions. As a preface to my remarks, I would like to answer—on the record—the question whether the Government support in principle a statutory tenancy deposit scheme. The answer to that question is yes. The hon. Gentleman then asked if the Government were committed to introducing proposals at some time. The answer to that question is also yes. However, there are many serious issues still to be resolved, and he knows that it is impossible to make commitments about future Queen's Speeches and specific timetables for future legislation. However, the Government are considering what might be required in drafting such legislation and, in the light of those considerations, what might be a suitable legislative vehicle. 
 The hon. Gentleman also asked a number of detailed questions about what one might describe as the infrastructure of a tenancy deposit scheme, for example, the deposit arrangements. I intend to answer those questions in the course of my remarks and offer a view as to how and when we expect to take these matters forward. There is a seamless, if not timeless, quality to the policy and law-making processes of Parliament. I am grateful to all hon. Members who tabled amendments for the opportunity to continue the Adjournment debate held in Westminster Hall on 15 October last year. The clearly expressed view by hon. Members of all parties was that the safeguarding of tenancy deposits from misappropriation by rogue landlords is a matter of great concern. 
 In responding to that debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary began by endorsing what my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) and for Redcar had said during its course. The interest of my hon. and learned Friends is well attested. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary noted that the crux of the matter was that the most vulnerable tenants are highly unlikely to pursue their 
 claims in court. Therefore, no matter how great the injustice done to them, they were unlikely to get the remedy to which they were entitled. I would add that many of those who go through the small claims procedure also find it difficult to enforce a judgment against a landlord who is resolved not to pay. 
 On the precise point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar about costs to tenants who seek redress, let me say in candour that we have yet to work out how that matter can be addressed, but a tenancy deposit arrangement that involved adjudication by a third party such as the independent housing ombudsman or the residential property tribunal would certainly be cheaper than a court proceeding. We are considering safeguarding the position of tenants through written agreements, which we believe would serve to reduce the frequency of disputes. 
 Opposition Members and, to some extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe spoke about using the Bill to deal with tenancy deposits. The essence of new clauses 1, 26 and 49 is that more needs to be done, and done sooner rather than later. The Government perfectly understand those who are concerned that the Housing Bill should not be ignored as a bird in the hand, as it were, but I do not endorse the new clauses for two reasons. First, in a statement on 16 June 2003, the Government committed themselves to considering the case for legislation alongside their consideration of the proposals that the Law Commission is to publish. I hasten to add that those proposals are expected within a little more than a couple of months, not the two centuries that have so mockingly been alluded to in the course of our proceedings. 
 Secondly, following that statement, we made it clear that a simple amendment to the Housing Bill would not achieve the desired effect. 
Mr. Davey rose—

Keith Hill: I am about to explain why it would be inappropriate to add the new clauses to the Bill, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to come in at this point, he may, of course.

Edward Davey: I just want to ask whether the Minister can assure the Committee that the Law Commission is studying the issue and that it will make detailed recommendations on it.

Keith Hill: If the hon. Gentleman is patient, I will assist him, and if I do not, he will be perfectly entitled to come back at me.
 We have come a long way in our consideration of the options, but we need to give further thought to issues that have been referred to. In March 2000, we encouraged the industry to set up a voluntary pilot. Initially, we provided start-up funding for two years. However, it soon became clear that the pilot would not grow into a self-financing voluntary scheme. Nevertheless, we extended its Government funding, as 
 it became clear that addressing the case for legislation was the next step and that we needed to learn further lessons from the pilot. 
 I stress that Government funding for a roll-out of the pilot as a national scheme was never in prospect. The Committee will appreciate that the Government would need to legislate for express powers to do that. Furthermore, it became clear that a voluntary scheme, even with Government funding, would not attract more than a minority of landlords. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe was right about that.

Sally Keeble: Will my right hon. Friend say more about that? Before introducing any statutory scheme, it is important that there is proper consultation with landlords. The worst result would be if the supply of rented accommodation dried up. At present, such accommodation is exceptionally important.

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend draws me to what I was going to say about the consultation process. I agree with her about the need for consultation—indeed, in November 2002 we issued a consultation paper on the case for legislation. We now propose to publish our response to the consultation, along with some carefully thought out legislative proposals. I hope that we will be able to do that in May or June.
 When considering the scope for legislation, we will look carefully at what is proposed in the new clause and at other proposals made by Shelter. However, this is a genuinely complex issue and real problems need to be addressed before the infrastructure for safeguarding tenancy deposits can be put in place. We need to be sure that as much as possible is set out in primary legislation. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for Southampton, Test—both former Ministers—for making that point so forcefully. The new clauses would leave many important issues to secondary legislation. We need to get the balance between primary and secondary legislation right. 
 On more than one occasion during these proceedings, the Government have been chastised for their alleged propensity to leave too much to secondary legislation. I would argue that in a matter as complex as tenancy deposits, with so many important rights at stake, we need to put the necessary arrangements in legislation and ensure appropriate scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test was right to point out the inconsistency of the Liberal Democrat position in that respect. 
 The more one plucks at the issue, the more one finds loose ends to be addressed. For example, even if we were to march ahead of the Law Commission's proposals, there would still be a case in favour of considering a requirement for written terms of tenancy. In schedule 4 we provide that it should be a mandatory condition of licensing that landlords provide tenants with a written statement of their terms of tenancy. There is good cause for saying that that should also apply to other landlords when they take deposits, but we have to consider how that would be enforced in the absence of the incentive of gaining a 
 licence. If we made that a requirement, the written terms could set out how deposits would be safeguarded and disputes over them adjudicated. The question of how deposits should be safeguarded raises the issue of whether there should be a single custodial scheme or whether professional or trade bodies should be allowed to establish schemes. Such schemes could also be based on third-party guarantees through bonding or insurance. 
 We have consulted—precisely as stipulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North—on those options, and the practicality of implementing them now has to be addressed. There are a number of existing models: letting agents already have the national approved letting scheme, and there are the client protection arrangements of the Association of Residential Letting Agents. We need to consider how best to support professional and trade bodies that are raising standards and training landlords and agents to manage their responsibilities, and whether such bodies could further that good work by attracting members through offering cost-effective tenancy deposit schemes. 
 The terms of a tenancy need to be clearly established between landlord and tenant at the start of the tenancy if misunderstandings are to be avoided at its conclusion.

John Hayes: I am interested in the case that the right hon. Gentleman is making. He emphasises that the process is complex: there are difficulties of enforcement and infrastructure and the relationship between such provisions and other parts of the Bill and other legal requirements on landlords is complex. Given all of that, would it not be better to start with a voluntary scheme? He argues that the pilot has not reached those who are most likely to be rogues, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test pointed out, there are good examples of local pilots. Would it not be better to build on them, at least at the beginning, for it will take considerable time to resolve all the difficulties and introduce a mandatory system?

Keith Hill: I was going to respond later to the points made by the hon. Member for Poole, but I will use the opportunity offered by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to do so now.
 For all the reasons that have been mentioned, voluntary schemes alone will not do, but I say again that we want to work with professional bodies that operate voluntary schemes. The hon. Member for Poole did not advocate voluntary schemes as the sole solution; he said that there had to be some form of statutory underpinning. He is right about that, and I shall explain how we think that might work. 
 The pilot scheme that I referred to showed that disputes over deposits most often involve inventories and cleaning at the end of a tenancy. Those are simple, straightforward and rather mundane matters, but anyone—constituency MP or human being—who has experienced cases involving tenancy deposits knows that such matters are crucial. Requirements regarding 
 inventories and cleaning at the end of a tenancy must be made clear at the start of it. It is important to prescribe what may be required of inventories after considering the forms and media—written, pictographic, photographic, and even video—in which they may be provided. 
 There are also considerations of how one defines a deposit. We need to exclude alternative means of extracting deposit money. It is no good banning unprotected deposits if refundable fees replace them. We would also not countenance devices such as a partially refundable double rent for the first couple of months. A scheme, or several schemes, will need to be established to guarantee that deposit money will be available to be paid to the people—landlords or tenants—to whom it should be paid. Such schemes will need to be approved, and we need to consider the criteria that should apply when approving them. 
 To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Poole, if we allow professional bodies to set up schemes subject to third-party guarantees, we might still need a default scheme. We will need to establish what any default scheme should consist of and what the role of the Government in its provision should be. There will need to be independent adjudication or determination of disputes. We will need to consider the means or the bodies through which adjudication is provided and appealed. We will need to consider how decisions are enforced. The new clause suggests that that could be done by using the enforcement procedures established under the Enterprise Act 2002. However, under part 8 of that Act, an enforcer is able to obtain an order to protect the collective interests of consumers, but individual tenants are not given redress against the landlord. 
 A key complaint is that the present court process is protracted and that its outcomes are difficult to enforce. The determination of disputes needs to be quick, cheap and enforceable. The body or bodies involved will need to be part of a legal process that offers a clear and simple route for appeals. The Bill might offer a quick solution to the issue of tenancy deposits, but that could be short sighted and create more problems than it solves. Indeed, in the Adjournment debate on 15 October, the my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wisely counselled against legislating in haste. 
 The Government want physical and management standards in the private rented sector to be raised, and that is a key theme of the Bill. However, tenancy deposits are a function of the contractual relationship between landlord and tenant, and it is appropriate to consider deposit protection in the context of matters that have been considered by the Law Commission in its recent review of tenure. On 5 November, it published its report on renting homes. As the Committee now knows very well, its proposals are to be enshrined in a draft Bill that it intends to publish in the next few months. I cannot say at present which aspects of its proposals will be taken up. 
 The Law Commission proposes that the regulatory framework for all tenants should be based on their having written contracts. That could offer a better 
 point of reference for landlord-tenant relations than direct reference to the many provisions of housing statute.

Sally Keeble: Even if my right hon. Friend does not want to say whether the Law Commission will be pressed, can he say whether he will consider including the inventory in the written record of the tenancy? That is often a source of complaints, and sometimes inventories are not included in tenancy agreements.

Keith Hill: I hope to be able to reassure my hon. Friend on what we are saying to the Law Commission about tenancy deposits. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton pointed out, the treatment of tenancy deposits was not part of the commission's original remit. However, there is a good case for dealing with that aspect of landlord-tenant relations as a key element of their initial contractual obligations.
 It is true that the commission's proposals may not offer us a quick fix and that there is much to be considered in them. As stated in its report, its recommendations for the reform of housing law represent radical legislative changes to the regulation of the rented sector of the housing market. In particular, the historical link between principles of property law and housing legislation will, as far as is practicable, be abandoned; instead, a new approach based on a contractual relationship that incorporates consumer law principles of fairness and transparency is proposed. 
 The Committee, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe and for Northampton, North, who raised the question, will be interested to note that I have made a new reference to the Law Commission in connection with its work on tenure. I have asked it to publish with its draft Bill some indicative clauses on the protection of tenancy deposits.

Clive Betts: I welcome what my right hon. Friend is saying. What he is offering will probably not be introduced as quickly as some might hope. Obviously, he cannot tell us when a Bill will be introduced in Parliament, but can he say when the proposals will be ready to be put into a Bill? Has he any idea of the time scale?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I am not going to succumb. He will have gathered from the drift of my comments that work is actively taking place. We expect the Law Commission to report to us in a timely fashion—I have mentioned a period of three to four months—and that at that point we may be able to consider a legislative route, but I cannot be more precise. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
 I referred to my request to the Law Commission. I envisage that the results of the exercise may have to come with some health warnings attached. First, they will be indicative and not fully approved for enactment. Secondly, we might not have tied up all the loose tends to which I referred in time for publication of those indicative clauses. Thirdly, they will be tied to 
 a provision in the Law Commission's draft Bill. It is unlikely that they could be shoehorned into the Housing Bill. 
 I hope that the Committee will accept that as a sensible next step in developing proposals to safeguard tenancy deposits in the context of the Law Commission's work. It should illustrate how safeguarding should work in the context of a requirement for written agreements. Having said all that, I emphasise that we are open to a wide range of options, but it is worth considering that provisions for the safeguarding of deposits could be a mandatory requirement of such written agreements. Tenants could enter agreements with the assurance that their deposits would be safeguarded by a Government-approved scheme set out in their tenancy agreement. In that case there would need to be the assurance of a quick and cheap resolution of claims in the event of disputes, as well as prompt payment from such schemes following adjudication. 
 With any mandatory requirement for the safeguarding of deposits, enforcement is an issue. We will need to evaluate all the options carefully. However, enforcement might be easier if safeguarding started with a written agreement or, at the very least, a statement of the terms of the tenancy. It would be a big step forward if all tenants could expect to see their rights and obligations clearly set out, including the way in which their deposit would be safeguarded and any disputes would be resolved. 
 New clause 1 would oblige the Secretary of State to provide a mandatory tenancy deposit scheme within 12 months of the implementation of part 6. I think that we all agree that that would be a very wide power, leaving everything to be prescribed in secondary legislation at the discretion of the Minister and by affirmative resolution of both Houses. New clause 49 would oblige the Secretary of State to provide for a tenancy deposit scheme to be reviewed annually. New clause 26, which was tabled by my hon. Friends, is longer and more elaborate, but I argue that it throws up a number of unanswered questions. 
 New Clause 49 would require landlords to pay deposits into the deposit scheme, but what that scheme would be is not defined. It would allow voluntary opt-outs from the scheme for members of self-regulated bodies that are bonded by insurance; in such cases the deposit could be paid directly to a landlord. Disputes about the return of a deposit would be resolved by independent adjudication, but the means by which, or the bodies through which, such adjudication would be provided and appealed is not set out. 
 Under new clause 26, both the insurance and the deposit schemes would have to be approved by the appropriate national authority—the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales. The appropriate national authority would also be able to issue regulations covering the management, terms, conditions and procedures of the schemes, and it would have the right to specify enforcement under the Enterprise Act 2002—for example, by local authority trading standards officers. However, the new clause leaves much to be prescribed in secondary 
 legislation and fails to define what is meant by ''deposits'' compared with other financial payments. Similarly, it does not define the nature of the default deposit scheme of independent adjudication, or the criteria whereby the voluntary opt-outs might be judged. Although new clause 26 provides that landlords have certain obligations regarding the receipt of a deposit, it does not establish the position of the tenant on payment of a deposit. In addition, it does not address the ability of the tenant to check that the deposit has been legally dealt with by the landlord on the basis of a valid inventory. Much of the enforcement would be left to local authority trading standards officers. In short, new clause 26 points to a variety of loose ends that need to be tied up before we can be sure of satisfactory legislation on tenancy deposits. 
 As I approach the end of this serious analysis of the amendments and the general issues, let me explain what we consider to be the way ahead and how our thinking on tenancy deposit plays into broader Government policy. I remind the Committee that the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement in December 2003 set out proposals for encouraging investment in the private rented sector. That will help raise standards in, and the image of, the sector. Apart from rooting out bad landlords through licensing, we need to deal with disreputable practices, and eliminating the misappropriation of tenancy deposits by rogue landlords will really help to raise the sector's image. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe was absolutely right about that, as was my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar. 
 My hon. and learned Friend also made the point that if too many tenants fear that they will lose their deposit at the end of a tenancy, the practice of withholding the last month's rent could become widespread. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North. So, while many tenants are concerned about losing deposits, many landlords face unpaid rent. How deposits are dealt with can too easily damage the image of the sector. The contractual relationship between landlord and tenant needs to be founded on trust. How deposits are handled is crucial to that. Landlords seek deposits to secure a commitment to the decent treatment of their property. Tenants need a commitment by the landlord to return the deposit if they have played their part. 
 I conclude by assuring the Committee that the Government are working with stakeholders to develop robust proposals to ensure that tenants' deposits are safeguarded and that any legislative proposals fully deliver that objective. That work will be published in a response to the consultation on tenancy deposits. We hope to publish it before the summer. I hope that I have demonstrated to the Committee the seriousness of the Government's consideration of the issue of tenancy deposits and, in light of those assurances, I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.

John Hayes: The Minister has, indeed, answered with due seriousness the queries raised by Members on both sides of the Committee. He has committed the Government to a scheme that, I think, will be welcomed by everyone. Every Member who has contributed to the debate has stressed the need for a national scheme. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that need and committed the Government to it.
 We understand the difficulty of implementing such a scheme in a consistent fashion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) said so persuasively, we have argued for an approach that is sufficiently flexible to allow the scheme to develop over time. That is why it is important to review the scheme regularly and, after consultation, to consider carefully the best form of implementation. Both landlords and tenants have concerns and have made representations to the Minister, to us and, I am sure, to others. 
 Given what the Minister has said, it would be inappropriate to press our amendments at this juncture. I do not know what other Members will say, but I think that we have put on the record our determination to ensure that the problem is dealt with in a consistent and effective way. The Minister has made it absolutely clear that he intends to do that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment—

Peter Pike: Order. You are not in a position to do that.

John Hayes: Or I would do so had I the right. I should like to say, at this juncture, how members of the Committee very much appreciate your chairmanship, Mr. Pike—the marvellous combination of northern grit tempered by a Christian heart, a kind of mix of rugby league and matins, which has provided for us the smooth consideration and proper scrutiny of business. As I said, if I had the right to withdraw the amendment, I would do so. I know that the Minister will have carefully considered the points made by my hon. Friends and others during the course of our short debate.

Clive Betts: I was probably correct in saying that I would get a lot of sympathy from the Minister. I got a detailed explanation of why there might be deficiencies in my new clause. Most important, we have agreement in principle to a mandatory tenancy deposit scheme, which is a very important step in delivering on the Government's commitment to do something about a very real problem. I appreciate that.
 I accept that at this stage my right hon. Friend cannot make definitive statements about when legislation might be introduced after the Law Commission has considered the matter, but he has at least given an indication of when he expects the Law Commission to report and said that it will publish some indicative clauses for consideration. That is progress towards legislation. I am sure he accepts that, although we shall not press the new clause to a Division today, we will watch progress very carefully to make sure that a scheme is proposed in legislation as soon as possible.

Edward Davey: This has been an excellent debate and the Minister has given an excellent response. We really have moved forward in our campaign, although we would have liked a more certain timetable. Shelter, NACAB and other campaigners would have liked a definitive timetable, but they probably understand why the Minister is not in a position to give that today. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pointed out that the Minister said that he is in favour of the principle of the proposal; in fact, the right hon. Gentleman has gone further today, telling us much more than we knew about his reference to the Law Commission, which will be reporting with indicative draft clauses in the next few months. In addition, the Government are to consult further on this issue before the summer recess. That is progress indeed and the reason why, in due course, I will ask to withdraw new clause 1.
 Although we have clearly come a long way, I hope that the Minister can give some indication of the way forward. One of the reasons that we drafted the clause as we did, leaving important matters to secondary legislation, was that we wanted to get some momentum and ensure that the Government will act quickly. I believe that the Minister has been able to reassure hon. Members that the Government will legislate before the next election. It would be in their interests to do so, as the measure would be very popular.

Keith Hill: When is the next election?

Edward Davey: The Minister will not say. Does he think there will be a snap election? That really would be news to stem from today's debate. On the assumption that there will not be a snap election, the next Queen's Speech would be the appropriate place to announce the measure.
 I do not want to prolong our proceedings. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has responded to this debate, and to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their contributions. In a matter of an hour or so, the Conservatives did two U-turns—but we have got used to their wriggling. I am grateful for the comments of Labour Members. They have played an important part in persuading the Government on this matter. 
 I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Sitting suspended. 
 On resuming—

New Clause 20 - Accessible housing registers for the disabled

'(1) Each local housing authority must maintain an ''accessible housing register''.
 (2) The housing register must outline—
(a) Current and proposed accessible residential properties in the local authority area (whether purpose-built or adapted) with details of the access features relating to each property; and
(b) The provisions available for disabled people who require accessible housing.
 (3) For the purpose of this section ''accessible residential properties'' means dwellings, flats and HMOs which provide a reasonable means of access and ease of use for disabled people, or which may be easily adapted to provide such access and ease of use.
 (4) The appropriate national authority may give guidance to local housing authorities about exercising their functions under this section.'.—[Mr. Hayes.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Hayes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 25—Accessible housing registers— 
 '(1) Each local housing authority shall maintain an accessible housing register. 
 (2) An accessible housing register means a register of— 
 (a) existing or planned accessible residential properties in the local authority area, whether purpose-built or adapted, with details of the access features relating to each property, and 
 (b) disabled people who require accessible housing, 
 and a service of matching disabled people to properties so recorded. 
 (3) For the purpose of this section ''accessible residential properties'' means dwellings, flats and houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales which provide a reasonable means of access and ease for use for disabled people or which may be easily adapted to provide such access and ease of use. 
 (4) The appropriate national authority may give guidance to local housing authorities about exercising their functions under this section. 
 (5) A local housing authority shall have regard to any guidance for the time being given under this section.'. 
New clause 42—Disability housing registers— 
'In the Housing Act 1996 (c.52) after section 167 (2E), insert— 
 ''(2F) Subject to subsection (2), the scheme may contain provision for the creation of a disability housing register. 
 A disability housing register consists of— 
 (a) a register or database of existing or planned accessible residential properties in the local authority area, whether purpose built or adapted, with details of the access features relating to each property, 
 (b) a register or database of disabled people who require accessible housing, 
 (c) a service of matching disabled people to properties so recorded. 
 For the purposes of this section ''accessible residential properties'' means dwellings, flats and houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales which provide a reasonable means of access and ease of use for disabled people or which may easily be adapted to provide such access and ease of use. 
 The appropriate national authority may give guidance to local housing authorities about exercising their functions under this section. 
 A local housing authority shall have regard to any guidance for the time being given under this section.''.'.

John Hayes: From the way that my colleagues have rushed back from their break, you can see the enthusiasm that they feel every time I rise to speak, Mr. Pike— although having said that, I see that the number of Government Members is not great either,
 and for the hon. Member for Ludlow to lose one colleague might be described as a misfortune, but he would have to plead guilty if charged with carelessness, because both his colleagues have gone. [Interruption.] But I do a disservice to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, as he has rushed back from his steaming cup of tea to hear my important words about new clause 20.

Peter Pike: Order. I remind hon. Members that we have a lot to get through this evening.

Matthew Green: As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings has just said how few people there are here, it might be worth his while putting on the record the fact that there are currently more Liberal Democrats present than Conservatives.

John Hayes: At this stage of our consideration of the Bill, the time has come for me to say something nice about the Liberal Democrats, so I confirm that at this very moment in time, and for the first time in the many hours for which the Committee has sat, they are here in greater numbers than the Conservatives—though not, of course, in greater quality.

Peter Pike: I hope that you will now speak to the new clause, Mr. Hayes.

John Hayes: I shall, Mr. Pike.
 The new clause can expect support from the whole Committee. It advertises a widely held desire among organisations and charities for disabled people for an accessible housing register. Its importance is underlined by the inadequate information currently available about appropriate housing for disabled people. There is a lack of supply of such housing, so any mechanism that brings disabled people and that housing together is welcome. There also a mismatch between supply and demand. Often, there is not a good match between the housing in a locality, the adaptations that have taken place during or subsequent to construction, and the people who would benefit most from living there. 
 The register would force local authorities to recognise the level of need for accessible housing within their areas. It is important that we do not frame the provision as one model; there must be choice. We do not want to force disabled people to accept accommodation simply because there is a register; there must be a range of models and options so that they can exercise choice over the housing that is most appropriate for them. 
 The Disability Rights Commission is very supportive of the proposal. It tells me that suitable property and people would be better matched were a register available, and that it would provide great social and financial benefits. I know that all Members on both sides of the Committee will share my concern that the new clause should be added to the Bill. 
 As there are other things to discuss in the short time available, I will make just two other points. There will be those who wonder whether the register that the new clause would require local authorities to draw up would add to their cost burden. Let me say 
 categorically that there would be substantial savings as a result of the provision of such a register. That is partly because of the problem of mismatch that I described, in that the people most likely to benefit from adaptations are not necessarily housed where those adaptations are made. There will be savings as a result of not removing adaptations and not having to adapt further properties, and as a result of the reduction in residential care admissions and hospital bed blocking. 
 There is significant financial benefit in ensuring that as many disabled people as possible—and elderly people, because of course there is an overlap between people with disabilities and people with infirmities associated with age—can stay in their own homes, properly adapted to their needs, for as long as possible. That affords people not only independence, but dignity. It also means a cost saving, because it would reduce the number of people forced into inappropriate accommodation. From the perspective of independent living, the new clause is a valuable and helpful proposed addition to the Bill, but I also think that it can be justified in terms of cost-effectiveness. 
 The lack of information in many localities about the availability of adapted and accessible properties, and the number of disabled people requiring them, means that resources are wasted. The Opposition have illustrated an appropriate concern for our most vulnerable fellow countrymen, and it is vital that the Bill, too, should do that. I hope that in that spirit, the Minister will accept our new clause.

David Kidney: Grouped with new clause 20 is new clause 25, in my name. My hon. Friend the Whip has commented on how all three new clauses in the group look suspiciously similar. That is a tribute to both the drafting skills of the Disability Rights Commission and its power to persuade not only Conservative but Labour and Liberal members of Committee to table a clause on its behalf, and I give it credit for that.
 I emphasise what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said. There are two purposes to the clause. The first is the narrow purpose of ensuring that resources are efficiently used. A tenanted property might be adapted for use by a disabled tenant, and when that tenancy ends, a new tenant who is not disabled might ask for the adaptations to be taken out again. The next tenant might be disabled, and ask for them to be put back in. That kind of nonsense can be stopped, to some extent, by matching disabled tenants with people who are interested in properties adapted for disabled tenants' use. However, we must always bear in mind the caveat that, as the hon. Gentleman said, this should be a matter of choice and empowerment, and that we should not try to restrict people to a particular property simply because it has been adapted. There are savings to be made from taking that kind of approach. 
 The clause's second purpose is much more general. It is that we should take the modern consumer approach to providing services for people, and adopt an estate agency type of approach to matching disabled people with properties that meet their needs. Once we look at the wider horizon, as my right hon. Friend the Minister might say, we can see that the 
 proposal need not be restricted to tenanted properties or affordable housing; it applies to the whole housing market. That reminds me of the earlier debate on my amendment concerning housing information packs to benefit disabled people, and the point about people not going to look at properties that it is a waste of time viewing because they are not suitable. The approach taken in the new clause would make that information available to people much earlier. 
 The idea of a register and a matching service is not new. There has been Government encouragement, and steps to develop that approach, in the past, going back to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Annex 1 to circular 17/96, entitled ''Private Sector Renewal: a Strategic Approach'', which was issued under the Act, contains guidance to local authorities to consider the 
''development of registers of adapted homes and of people looking for such properties''. 
Those are the building blocks of a disability housing register. 
 Then, in paragraph 6.11 of the code of guidance issued under parts 6 and 7 of the Housing Act 1996, in the section headed ''Information about allocations schemes'', housing authorities are encouraged 
''to maintain lists of properties which are suitable for disabled people and other special needs groups.'' 
Again, encouragement is given at an early stage. 
 More recently, disability housing registers were defined in a good practice guide published jointly in 1999 by the Housing Corporation and the National Disabled Persons Housing Service. This publication, which was called ''A Perfect Match'', describes the benefits of such registers, gives examples of early approaches to their use and suggests how they might be set up. Although that guide is sold out, a second edition is in preparation and should be available next month. 
 Those are examples of what has already been done. It is time for a statutory duty to be introduced to take disability housing registers a step further. I support a briefing that I have received from the National Disabled Persons Housing Service, which in turn is supported by the Disability Rights Commission, Shelter, the National Housing Federation and the Royal National Institute for the Blind and gives local housing authorities stronger encouragement to establish DHRs. I am told that such services have already been established in Sheffield, Bradford, Leicestershire, the city of Leicester, Reading and Glasgow, sometimes as part of more general disabled persons' housing services.

John Hayes: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman mentions Reading, because I have a paper about Reading, to which his arguments are relevant. In Reading there has been a real saving from such a project. The local authority estimates that such a register may save it between £200,000 and £400,000. Figures from Bradford suggest a saving of perhaps
 £600,000. Those are considerable sums, and I ask the Minister to look more closely at the experiences that the hon. Gentleman describes in those places.

David Kidney: So you see, Mr. Pike, that we come full circle back to the economic sense of establishing the registers, as demonstrated by those statistics.
 One of the wider benefits of registers is that they would publicise the right of disabled people to be treated like anybody else in every aspect of housing provision. I want to give an example of a shocking practice relating to part M of the building regulations, which requires all new properties to be built to lifelong standards: for instance, they must not have steps to the front door, but must have doors wide enough for a wheelchair. If somebody who is disabled wants to buy the property, they can do so and will be able to use it, but if someone bought it when they were not disabled and later become disabled, the property would already be suitable for their changed circumstances. 
 I have done some research and I have asked parliamentary questions on whether builders now obey part M of the regulations. To a huge extent they seem not to. I have a constituent called Tim Midgley, a wheelchair user, whom I supplied with research last year by the John Grooms housing association and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. With the help of that research, Mr. Midgley did his own assessment of houses built between October 1999, when part M became effective, and December 2002. He claims that, of more than 500,000 properties built during that period, only 71,000 were compliant with part M. The new regulations from October 1999 apply to permission given to develop a property, not from the start of construction, so it is possible that many of the properties built then had received permission before that date. Therefore, to be fair to builders, I must add that many of the properties may not have been covered by part M. 
 However, a wheelchair group that Tim Midgley tells me about has more recently carried out two surveys of homes. Between 7 and 9 September 2003, 
''123 wheelchair users visited 287 show homes'' 
and found that only two out of 287 total were suitable for them, in terms of their being able to get to the front door and the front door being wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair. Later, 
 ''Between the 19th to 23rd November 2003 . . . 106 wheelchair users visited . . . a further 185 . . . sites'' 
 and found that 
''only four were accessible to wheelchair users''. 
My maths tells me that that makes six out of 472 at the end of 2003. The excuse that the permission was granted before October 1999 is wearing a bit thin. I urge the Minister to take note of those statistics and make some inquiries.

John Hayes: It is worth adding to the hon. Gentleman's extremely apposite comments that between 350,000 and 750,000 people who would be affected by that are either permanent or part-time wheelchair users. Given what he has said, it is not
 surprising that the John Grooms housing association described the chances of a disabled person being able to access a suitable home as a lucky dip.

David Kidney: That is right. A large number of us have signed an early day motion—I think that it is early-day motion 173—congratulating John Grooms on that research and on exposing those statistics.
 To return to the clause, I believe that if there were such a service matching disabled people to properties, and it was obvious that the market was not providing the properties needed for that matching service, the existence of the service would help to highlight that fact. We would be doing disabled people a great favour by establishing those registers and services, so that such things would be exposed more regularly.

Edward Davey: I support what has been said in the general debate so far. Obviously, our new clause 42 is linked with the new clauses in the name of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and that of the hon. Member for Stafford.
 There seems to be a general consensus in the Committee that we need to build on the guidance for the 1996 Act. I have the same briefing as the hon. Member for Stafford, and I will not repeat everything that he has said. Clearly, that guidance existed and it is something that can be built on. It is a shame that it rather seems to have got lost when the guidance following the Homelessness Act 2002 was issued. I hope that the Government can return to the previous guidance and extend it far more widely—as is suggested by the three new clauses, which, in different ways, propose the new register. 
 I want to give one example from an area that I am beginning to know more about, where, if we had such a register, the state would save an awful lot of money. Through contacts with constituents I have been made aware that there is growing use of dogs for disabled people, which enable them to become completely independent in their own homes. Thus people who had previously required 24-hour care, seven days a week—with the expense that that brings the social services departments of local authorities—suddenly have very little human care, because the dog can provide all the care that they require. It may sound astonishing to hon. Members, but that is a fact. Charities such as Dogs for the Disabled and Canine Partners for Independence provide and train the dogs. They bring about an amazing change in those people's lives. They suddenly get freedom—even, sometimes, the freedom to go out to work. Therefore the state benefits even more, because someone moves off benefits, goes into gainful employment and pays taxes. There are huge benefits. 
 Why do I raise that issue in relation to the registers? Well, one of the issues for the people who would benefit from having such a dog—who would choose to have a dog if they could—is that they need homes with a garden: the dog has got to do what dogs do. Therefore, it is important that homes with gardens are available for such people. Perhaps such a consideration could be added to the guidance. That would not only provide the financial benefits 
 mentioned by the hon. Member for Stafford, it would facilitate access to specially trained dogs for disabled people, which would provide another financial benefit for local authorities and the state. It would show the power of this House to adopt measures such as the ones proposed. Not only would it improve the quality of life for the disabled people who would benefit, but it would also have huge benefits for the wider community. This is a matter of total common sense. It is not a party political point, but something on which we can all agree. 
 I was interested to see the Minister's reaction to the comments of the hon. Member for Stafford, which clearly showed that although though the House has passed regulations on the matter, they are not being properly enforced. We are not seeing the desired changes in construction practices. The Minister was rightly alarmed by that. I hope that he will confirm that the Government will accept one of the new clauses, or at least the principle behind them. I hope that he will be alarmed by what he has heard and make further efforts to ensure that regulations previously passed are properly enforced. If he does so, he will get three cheers from the Committee.

Yvette Cooper: New clauses 20, 25 and 42 propose that local authorities should be required to maintain accessible housing registers for people with disabilities. Clearly, it is important that people with disabilities are housed appropriately, and we must match the housing needs of disabled people with the accommodation available. We are providing substantial support to local housing authorities through the disabled facilities grant, which will increase from £57 million to £100 million next year. Hon. Members have made some important points about matching local needs with the availability and the provision of housing locally.
 The proposals would require local authorities to maintain detailed registers of all accessible housing in their areas. New clauses 25 and 42 would require the local authority to maintain a register of people with disabilities and offer a service matching their needs to appropriate homes. We have to exercise considerable caution when contemplating placing statutory obligations on local authorities, given the considerable demands that that would place on their resources, especially those of their housing services. 
 I was interested in the points made by hon. Members about the potential savings that might accrue, and I am happy to consider further some of the examples that they gave. The matter needs more rigorous consideration. It would be easy to postulate savings, but then find that the burdens created by having to provide such detailed information considerably outweighed any potential savings on resources. I am happy to consider that matter further; there is guidance on it already. 
 The code of guidance on the allocation of accommodation recommends that housing authorities maintain lists of properties suitable for people with disabilities and other special needs groups. It recommends that the lists contain accessible or significantly adapted local authority stock, and RSL 
 and private sector properties, to which tenants would be nominated. That explanation is contained in statutory guidance, so housing authorities are expected to pay due regard to it. 
 We should also bear in mind that we have recently abolished the duty to maintain a housing register. To reverse that and place an additional burden on local authorities, particularly in relation to one category of housing, would seem to run counter to the direction of reducing the statutory burdens on local authorities in this area. 
 We also need to consider the changes that are taking place in the approach to letting local authority and social housing. Hon. Members raised the question of choice, and emphasised the importance of choice for people with disabilities. That is an important issue. We are seeing the introduction of choice-based lettings across the country. In the areas in which such lettings have been piloted, they are proving extremely popular. They give prospective tenants considerably more choice and flexibility when deciding where to go. Such lettings are a shift away from the traditional idea of the local authority allocating a person to a place, or to a particular house. The traditional idea of the register may look rather different if a choice-based lettings approach is taken. Through that approach, which is rather different from the register approach, there may be other ways of improving the match between needs and availability. We need to consider the issue further. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford raised a point about part M of the regulations. Clearly, that is a cause for serious concern, and we will certainly pursue the issue of whether part M regulations are being implemented and enforced. Hon. Members are right: if this House has specified the changes that it thinks need to take place to improve accessibility for people with disabilities, such changes ought to take place in practice. We will need to pursue the matter to ensure that they do, and to see whether further measures need to be taken. I give him an undertaking that we will pursue the issue. 
 On the broader question raised by the new clauses, we are concerned about placing disproportionate burdens on local authorities. I am concerned about the points that hon. Members have made and want to consider further how better to match needs, particularly in the context of choice-based lettings, which may allow us to pursue the issue in a slightly different way. I will consider the matter further, but I urge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw the new clause, because we do not think it appropriate at this stage to introduce a statutory duty for local authorities in that way.

John Hayes: I hear what the Under-Secretary says, and, of course, such things are never easy. The new responsibility would be testing for local authorities, but I must pick up on a point that she made about costs. As I said, I have a paper from Reading—the hon. Member for Stafford mentioned Reading first. In
 Reading, there is a partnership between the borough council social services and housing departments, which is the lead partner, Reading Abbey and Reading Thames primary care groups, and Ability housing association. The partners have been running the project for some considerable time. They estimate the costs of running the register to be something in the order of £40,000 a year. They also estimate that with an effective disability housing register, up to 10 residential care admissions that might normally be expected each year could be prevented, saving something in the region of £156,000 a year. On that basis alone, the register would be cost-effective.
 In addition to that, there are the substantial savings on adaptations. It is worth pointing out that the team estimates that 10 void properties a year require adaptation before the tenant moves in. As most of us on the Committee know, the cost per property of installing adaptations ranges from £100 to about £8,000. The team estimates that the total annual cost would be about £25,000. In addition to that, there is a cost of approximately £8,000 for dismantling adaptations. As the hon. Member for Stafford said, that often happens when a different kind of person moves into the property. As those figures stack up, the £40,000 for running the scheme looks pretty insignificant.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I said earlier, I am keen to look in more detail at the evidence that he has, and at the comments that hon. Members have made about cost. I have not seen the survey that he cites, which is why I am keen to look at it and consider the cost issues in more detail.
 Mr. Hayes: The Under-Secretary is, as ever, professional and charming. She almost persuades me not to push the new clause to a vote, but knowing that the Government are unlikely to support it, given what she has said, and mindful of the fact that we need to press the point home hard, a vote is appropriate on this occasion. I hear what she says, and the debate has been constructive, but I want the Committee to vote. 
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 New clause 21Warm homes

Warm homes

'(1) The appropriate national authority should issue guidance for the improvement (where appropriate) of existing HMOs and the implementation in future housing stock (where possible) of— 
 (a) installation of products manufactured for cavity walls, loft or underfloor installation, external and internal wall cladding and draft proofing 
 (b) Greater control of domestic heating systems, low emissivity glazing and efficient fitting of pipes and plumbing. 
 (2) The local housing authority should seek to act in accordance with subsection 1 and with the Sustainable Energy Act 2003.'.—[Mr. Hayes.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time.

John Hayes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 43—Standards in social housing— 
 '(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all social housing will by 2016 and as far as is reasonably practicable have insulation and heating and ventilation standards that are at least equivalent to that required in newly built homes by the Building Regulations for the time being. 
 (2) For the avoidance of doubt the standards referred to above shall include the following provisions in the following circumstances, namely that: 
 (a) in the case of properties with reasonable access to a loft the standard should specify a minimum loft installation of 200mm; and 
 (b) in the case of properties with cavity wall the standard should require that the cavity be insulated; and 
 (c) any hot water tank must be adequately insulated; and 
 (d) there must be a heating system that is economical and efficient and which is capable of heating the whole dwelling to a comfortable level in normal weather conditions at a cost that is affordable to the occupant; and 
 (e) in the case of properties with solid walls and no loft space any such house must achieve a SAP rating of no lower than 60. 
 (3) In this section ''social housing'' means housing let by a registered social landlord or a local housing authority.'.

John Hayes: The whole Committee will be concerned about fuel poverty. There is probably not a great deal of fuel poverty in sun-drenched Ludlow or leafy Surbiton, but in other parts of the country there certainly is.

Matthew Green: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me, since he mentioned my constituency. I have to say that he has very little idea of what it is like, which is probably why the Tories lost the seat. In fact, there is a considerable amount of poverty in my constituency—some of the poorest wards in England are there—and along with poverty goes fuel poverty. The hon. Gentleman has a completely wrong idea of what Ludlow is like.

John Hayes: I know a great deal more about Ludlow following this Committee, because I have heard numerous anecdotes about it. Indeed, I might say that I know more than I expected, or needed, to know about Ludlow as a result of his many comments. I do not have the figures to hand, but of course average incomes in my constituency are considerably lower
 than in his. By any measure of deprivation my constituency is in greater need than his, and he ought to be careful before he makes that sort of intervention—but let us leave that to one side.
 There are many other parts of the country where fuel poverty is greater than either in Ludlow or in south Lincolnshire. It is worth reminding the Committee how fuel poverty is defined—the Government define it as households that need to spend—but do not necessarily do so—more than 10 per cent. of their income on energy, compared with a national average of 3.5 per cent. of income. There is a big overlap between fuel poverty and other forms of disadvantage. People suffering from fuel poverty will usually be in older or inadequate housing. They will often be from vulnerable groups—the elderly suffer disproportionately from fuel poverty—and they will also, of course, include those living in areas affected by adverse weather conditions. In the far north, the temperature is altogether harsher than—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) wants to intervene, although I was not thinking only of lovely Bolton—

Sally Keeble: Think of somewhere—anywhere—in the north-east.

John Hayes: Off the top of my head, I could say Gilly-gilly-hassenpfeffer-catch-an-Allan-Bogen-by-the-sea. Max Bygraves, who has played a large part in our proceedings, had a particular interest in it. I understand that he lives on the cliffs at Bournemouth, so he probably suffers sharp winds and cold temperatures, although probably not the fuel poverty that lies at the heart of the new clause.
 The new clause would create a new responsibility. The warm homes initiative began in the mid-1990s. A Bill was introduced, I think by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). It subsequently became an Act and was sharpened up by Bills in 2000 and later. It has led to a series of targets and to proper expectations about what we should do about warm homes. Indeed, the Government have set their own targets. The latest figures suggest that there have been some improvements and that there has been a decline in fuel poverty as a result, but the Government are not on schedule to meet their target by 2010. The real problem is that the provisions do not have enough teeth to allow us to enforce our responsibilities as regards warm homes. The new clause would give the provisions more teeth. 
 I know that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have strong feelings about warm homes and fuel poverty. They recognise that there have been improvements since 1995, and the Government acknowledge the need to do more, but there are real problems with meeting the targets, and the provision of properly insulated warm homes is patchy. If we are to deal seriously with fuel poverty and the problems faced by vulnerable groups, we must take this opportunity to reinforce our commitments by supporting new clause 21, in my name and those of my hon. Friends. 
 I hope that the hon. Member for Stafford, who has moved half way across the Floor of the Committee and is now closer to the compassionate Conservatism that I have sought to articulate over the past several weeks, will not simply abstain but go all the way in the defence of the most needy by supporting the new clause with my Conservative colleagues and me.

Matthew Green: I support new clause 43, in the name of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. In fact, you have caught me out by calling me to speak now, Mr. Pike, because I was half expecting you to call him to speak to it first. It has the firm backing of the parliamentary warm homes group, and I am delighted that he has tabled it. I shall not go through the briefing, because I suspect that I would be taking the words out of his mouth. I have seen that happen to others in Committee, but I shall not do it to him. I am sure that he will take a comprehensive approach to the issue.
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings seems to be looking forward to the end of our proceedings even more than the rest of us—he is certainly running out of sensible things to say. He suggested that his constituency had lower than average incomes, but I do not think that it is an objective 2 area, as most of mine is. I do not think that it is a rural regeneration zone, as mine is, either. To find areas with lower average incomes than south Shropshire one must go to the north-east of England, or Cornwall. I suspect that his statistics are wrong, not for the first time. 
 I do not want to remove the gloss from what the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East will say. I am sure that he will make the points that I would otherwise have made from the excellent brief from the parliamentary group on warm homes. We fully support his new clause, and if he were minded to press it to a Division, we would vote with him.

Brian Iddon: New clause 43 is the product of the all-party group on warm homes. The Government's objective under the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 is to end fuel poverty by 2010 in the social housing sector by setting a decent homes standard. The gist of my argument is that we will not meet that standard if we do not upgrade the decent homes standard with regard to energy or thermal efficiency.
 Standards for new build, whether in the social or the private sector, are now much higher than the standards set for improvement in thermal efficiency by the decent homes standard. There lies the problem. The warm homes group has done some research, which we have circulated to the Committee. The group concluded that, based on the latest 2002 Government figures, 1.4 million social sector homes in England are failing to meet the decent homes standard. Of those, the vast majority—80 per cent., or 1.1 million—failed on thermal insulation grounds. There is an urgent need to 
 install energy efficiency in the homes occupied by perhaps 2.5 million people—I am working on the average figure of 2.2 persons living in a household. 
 Even worse, the former Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions acknowledged in its 2001 consultation on the decent homes standard that 25 per cent. of social sector households whose property already complied with the current decent homes standard were still in fuel poverty. If those figures are still broadly correct—estimates by the National Energy Action group given in evidence to the Trade and Industry Select Committee suggest that they are—a further 650,000 social sector homes, lived in by a further 1.4 million people, that comply with the current standard, are still in fuel poverty. If we add 1.1 million and 650,000, that comes to around 1.75 million households, and if we convert that roughly into the number of people living in those households, almost 4 million people could be living in those homes. 
 We have a choice. We can either continue with the current standards or upgrade the standards. The argument of the warm homes group is that if we do not upgrade the standard of thermal efficiency for the decent homes standard, we shall not comply with the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000. That is the choice available to the Government. 
 I have a further point. The Government have introduced a number of instruments to improve our homes, including the thermal efficiency, and I have referred to the decent homes standard. The Bill also refers to the housing, health and safety rating system and the licensing of houses in multiple occupation. The second problem is that there appear to be no links between the three policy instruments that the Government are using to improve our homes, and all of them could impact on the problem of energy efficiency. 
 I will try to keep this brief, because there are other matters to be discussed before we finish. Ideally, the energy efficiency standards of all three policy instruments that I just referred to should be the same. If they were the same, we would accelerate towards the target that the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000 set the Government. The bottom line is that we will not achieve that target unless standards of thermal efficiency are improved under the decent homes standard.

Sydney Chapman: I support my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings on new clause 21, as I support the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East on new clause 43. I do so particularly because I have the privilege to be vice-chairman of the all-party warm homes group.
 As a retired architect, throughout my political career I have found it strange that a country such as ours, with such an economy—whatever difficulties it may get into temporarily—has not got a housing stock that meets what ought to be, on any account, basic standards of insulation, heating and ventilation. Generally we have a temperate climate, although it can be extreme at times. I applaud the Government for responding to private Members' legislation, which a number of us have been involved in over the years, and 
 for their commitment in the 2000 Act. It is no criticism of the Government when I say that this is something that, on a multi-party basis, we ought to encourage whatever Government is in power to pursue. What I particularly like and recommend about new clause 43 is that it gives sufficient time—until 2016—to get the standards up to the requirements of a civilised nation.

Yvette Cooper: New clause 21 sets out the need for guidance on the improvement of existing houses in multiple occupation in terms of insulation and heating. The Bill already contains measures relating to the energy efficiency of homes, such as home information packs, which would include energy reports for prospective buyers, and the new housing health and safety rating system, which will enable authorities to assess the health and safety impact of a range of hazards—including those caused by cold, damp and mould—and will provide an objective basis for appropriate action.
 Sustainable communities need decent homes. We have made the achievement of the decent homes target a clear priority for social housing providers over the next few years. It is clear that the benefits in terms of quality of life for occupiers, and also in terms of the health of those who live in houses that do not have adequate heating and do not meet the decent homes standards in whatever way, can be great. 
 The thermal criterion is an important part of the decent homes target. A large proportion of the homes that fail to meet the standard do so either because they are not properly insulated or because they do not have adequate heating. It is clearly an important issue in terms of meeting the decent homes and fuel poverty targets. Minimum standards of energy efficiency for future housing stock are set out in part L of the building regulations. We are committed to further amendments to part L that would increase the energy efficiency of new dwellings as well. The minimum standards of energy efficiency set out in the building regulations also apply when building work is carried out on existing housing stock, including houses in multiple occupation. Local authorities have wide powers to provide assistance to home owners and tenants for repairs and improvements to their homes. 
 New clause 21 is specifically about guidance and acting in accordance with it. There is already considerable guidance available. We are publishing revised guidance on implementing the decent homes standard, including the thermal comfort criterion, this week. It also covers the refurbishment of private sector homes, including HMOs. We must recognise that fewer levers are available to us when dealing with the private sector compared with the social housing sector; it is much easier for us to make changes and tackle fuel poverty in social housing than in private sector housing. 
 We have issued substantial guidance on how to improve the energy efficiency of existing and new-build housing. For the refurbishment of existing dwellings, we have issued new improved guidance documents for local housing authorities and registered social landlords. We have also provided funding for other bodies such as the Energy Saving Trust and the 
 Building Research Establishment, which provides additional detailed guidance. There is also web-based guidance on many of those matters. 
 There is no need for further statutory guidance, and although I agree with the intention behind the new clause, it would be inappropriate to specify a requirement for further guidance when a considerable amount is already available. I ask the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw his new clause. 
 New clause 43 would require the Secretary of State to ensure by 2016 that all social housing stock had the same levels of insulation, heating and ventilation as new-build properties as set out in the building regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East knows, we are committed to meeting the decent homes target by 2010. It will ensure that all social housing can provide occupants with a reasonable degree of thermal comfort, and that each dwelling has efficient heating and effective insulation. Both criteria must be met before the standard is reached.

Matthew Green: I am sure that the Minister is aware that the Government's own consultation on the decent homes standard has accepted that 25 per cent. of homes that already comply with the standard may still be in fuel poverty. Although the standard will mean an improvement for many properties, it will not completely deal with fuel poverty.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for timing his intervention so that I could take a drink of water, as my throat had become extremely dry. He is right to say that fuel poverty is not about energy efficiency alone; income and fuel prices are also relevant. Households living in decent homes but in fuel poverty are likely to be among the poorest households, so addressing fuel poverty means dealing with the infrastructure of homes, heating and energy efficiency, and factors such as household income.
 That is why we have also set a target to end by 2010 the problem of fuel poverty for vulnerable households. We will shortly publish a fuel poverty implementation plan that will set out how we will make further progress towards that target. It includes the housing programme perspective, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there are further aspects.

Brian Iddon: We are now seeing significant increases in fuel prices, especially gas prices, which have a knock-on effect on electricity prices. Does the Minister not agree that we might push more people into fuel poverty if they continue to rise?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Prices are an important factor, which is why even something as simple as VAT on fuel was an important issue. I can assure him that the discussions on meeting the fuel poverty targets led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs consider all factors, including utility prices, which have been discussed with the regulators. We consider fuel poverty in all its dimensions; it is not simply a housing and energy efficiency issue.
 Hon. Members have raised questions about efficiency. Because of differences in efficiency between gas and oil heating systems and the other heating systems listed, the insulation regarded as appropriate to meet the decent homes target differs according to the kind of heating. For dwellings with gas and oil programmable heating, cavity wall insulation or at least 50 mm of loft insulation is regarded as effective. For dwellings heated by electric storage heaters or other kinds of heating, 200 mm of loft insulation is required. 
 Those measures are seen as the best way of increasing the energy efficiency of homes. It is right that they should be part of the broader decent homes target. Analysis undertaken by the Building Research Establishment, using data from the 1996 English house condition survey, was useful in setting out the criteria. Many landlords will be able to provide housing above that standard, and additional guidance on implementing the standard for high energy efficient boilers is available when central heating is installed or replaced. 
 A wide range of issues has been taken into account as part of the decent homes standard. That standard and the fuel poverty target are challenging, but in the round they set out realistic milestones on the progress that needs to be made. Considerably more needs to be done, however. The publication of the fuel poverty implementation plan will set out further details. We are moving in the right direction and are making substantial progress, but we clearly have further to go. We recognise the many dimensions of the problem. So I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion and new clause.

John Hayes: I hear what the Under-Secretary says. She is right that progress has been made. Indeed, she was right about the number of people in fuel poverty. Although she did not give a figure, it has fallen from 5.5 million in 1996 to 3 million.
 As I said, and as the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East indicated, half those people are vulnerable and suffer from a range of special needs or deprivations. The Government acknowledge that. Although progress has been mad, it is too slow. As the hon. Gentleman said, to meet their targets, they will have to accelerate pretty rapidly, because at the moment they are on schedule to miss them. The energy efficiency improvement needed to meet those targets is about 8 per cent. a year, but it is running at about 6 per cent. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), the former Environment Minister, described that figure as ''wholly inadequate''. Given that he is no longer a member of the Government, it is for current Ministers to explain their progress. The general view is that if we are to attack fuel poverty, a significant improvement in performance in respect of warm homes is needed. 
 I have not gone into detail about the technical aspects, and the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East is a greater expert than I am, but some of the adaptations and changes that can be made to improve the condition of homes are fairly straightforward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet implied. They do not have to be terribly costly. As for new build, getting it right at the outset will not be massively costly—all the independent research supports that. We are not talking about an insurmountable target; it can be done if there is a will. 
 Although I accept the Under-Secretary's good will, and although I accept that the Government are moving in the right direction, I share the view of the hon. Gentleman, and of the group of which he and my hon. Friend are members, that more needs to be done. 
 Given the happy atmosphere that has permeated the Committee during our consideration of the Bill, it seems a shame to end our affairs in a Division. The Committee has singularly lacked contumely, except perhaps a little between Liberal Democrat Members and myself, but that has been no fault of mine, as you know, Mr. Pike. I am not wild about Liberal Democrats, but I know that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton fully understands the importance of being earnest; he is certainly earnest. Although the hon. Member for Ludlow may have thought that he was a man of no importance, we have learnt that he is an important man, at least in Ludlow. As for the hon. Member for Teignbridge, we can only assume that he is somewhere that he thinks is more significant than being here, debating important issues that affect so many vulnerable people. Having said all that, however, I welcome the contribution of Liberal Democrat Members. 
 This has been a good Committee. There will not be much time at the end to say happy things about what we have done over the past few weeks, so I beg your indulgence, Mr. Pike. We have, I think, properly scrutinised the Bill. I thank my hon. Friends for the role that they played. Chipping Barnet, Poole and Westminster could not have better servants than my hon. Friends, nor could South-West Bedfordshire, in the form of my hon. Friend who is not here today. 
 Government Members have also performed a critical role in holding their Ministers to account—and how well the Ministers have done in response! The ministerial team in the Committee has listened, has been responsive and, in many cases, has acknowledged that there is more work to be done. There has been far more agreement in the Committee than disagreement. 
 I particularly enjoyed the Minister's occasional lapses into French, so much so that I thought it necessary to say to him, ''Il y a des gens qui croient qu'il est pretentieux d'utiliser le franccais quand l'anglais suffirait, mais je ne suis pas d'accord avec ces gens.''

Peter Pike: Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order.

John Hayes: I may be out of order, Mr. Pike, but loosely translated that means that there are those who think that it is pretentious to use French when English will suffice, but I am not one of them.

David Kidney: Je ne regrette rien.

John Hayes: Given, I hope, the constructive role that all members of the Committee have played, I believe that we should end this aspect of our considerations with drama. For that reason and despite all that I said about the Minister, I think that we should vote on the new clause.
 Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Keith Hill: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. May I follow the example of my honourable counterpart, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings? I had prepared something glowing with positive references to every member of the Committee, but I am very much aware of the time constraints. Therefore, in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I simply observe that this has been a highly constructive and creative Committee, which has mainly been good humoured. If there was any lapse, it was entirely my fault, and I throw myself on the mercy of the Committee.
 We can honestly say that we have had full debates on all the substantive issues. I understand from my colleague who is the timekeeper on these matters that we have fully debated more than 65 per cent. of the Bill. That is no mean achievement when one allows for all the technical elements. I am sincerely grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for their serious, genuinely informed and positive engagement. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and my hon. Friends the Members for Gillingham (Paul Clark), our Whip, and for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), my Parliamentary Private Secretary, for their support in these proceedings. Indeed, I am grateful to all my hon. Friends, but they will not mind if I single out my guru for special gratitude. 
 On behalf of the Ministers, I express our huge appreciation for the support of the silent ones, both in the preparation for the Committee and during its proceedings. On behalf of the whole Committee, I 
 thank the Badge Messengers, police officers, Hansard and, not least, the Clerks, who have offered us wise guidance. Above all, Mr. Pike, we thank you and Mr. Conway for your ever cheerful, positive and wise guidance in our proceedings. The common consensus is that this has been a very good Committee, and we owe you a huge debt for that.

Edward Davey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. May I add my thanks to those of the Minister, in particular to you and Mr. Conway, who presided over our proceedings with your usual efficiency, professionalism and good nature?
 It has been a good Committee, in which hon. Members on both sides contributed to improving the Bill. Although we may return to some battles at future stages, we made progress, especially earlier today when the Government accepted the case for better regulation of park homes. That was a notable achievement. Many Labour Members can be proud of the pressure that they put on their Front Benchers to ensure that those changes went through. 
 We have particularly enjoyed the remarks of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings—especially hearing about his lunches.

Chris Ruane: Do not forget his bow tie.

Edward Davey: Yes, we have also enjoyed his bow tie and his lapse into whatever language it was—I am not sure that it was French. It reminded me of the ''Fawlty Towers'' sketch in which a young man with a hairy chest and a medallion says to Sybil, ''Pretentious, moi?''—it was funny when it was on the telly.

David Kidney: It's the way you tell them.

Edward Davey: We have had some fun, certainly at the expense of the Conservatives. We puzzled over their views on the rights of same-sex couples, which seemed to change from day to day. We had new policy ideas about how to define areas for selective licensing, although I will not linger on that sorry moment—it was not the highlight of our proceedings. We had some good, healthy debates, and have given the other place some real meat to chew on.
 I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge and for Ludlow, who made notable contributions. I also thank some Back-Bench Members, in particular the hon. Member for Stafford and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar—I hope she does not mind that. She made some very effective contributions. From the Conservatives, I thank the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. He is a distinguished Member of the House and speaks with genuine authority on issues such as housing. He is able to think outside the political box, which is always welcome. 
 In that spirit of thanks to Back Benchers, I am pleased to see that we are moving towards the end of our proceedings, and I thank the Committee for its indulgence.

John Hayes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Pike. I omitted to add my thanks to you and to Mr. Conway. I have already said nice things about you, Mr. Pike. Mr. Conway has a reputation for defending defenceless creatures, and there are few more defenceless creatures than the members of this Committee. I thank him and all the staff of the House who have made our proceedings possible, effective and efficient.

Peter Pike: The Chairman, too, will be out of order in saying that—just as points of order raised in this House and in Committee are nearly always out of order—nearly all those points of order were not points of order. However, they were appreciated in the spirit in which they were made. Both Mr. Conway and I have enjoyed chairing this Committee. Some Committees are easy to chair; this one has been extremely easy and we have enjoyed it. Some can be difficult; that certainly has not been the case in any of our proceedings here. We shall now move on with the agenda.New Clause 22 Obligation to provide and facilitate provision of caravan sites

New Clause 22 - Obligation to provide and facilitate provision of caravan sites

'(1) Each local planning authority shall make provision in local development documents for adequate and suitable accommodation to meet the needs of all Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their area, having regard to the Regional Spatial Strategy (Spatial Development Strategy for planning authorities in Greater London).
 (2) Without prejudice to their obligations to discharge any of their functions, every local authority, being a district council, the council of a metropolitan district or London Borough, or unitary authority shall—
(a) facilitate the provision of, and
(b) if necessary secure the provision of,
adequate and suitable accommodation to meet the needs of all Gypsies and Travellers residing in or resorting to their area.
 (3) In exercising the above, such authorities shall have particular regard to—
(a) the requirements of children,
(b) the health and safety of the community,
(c) access to services.
 (4) The Secretary of State shall provide such guidance as he considers appropriate for the purpose of ensuring the better performance by those persons of their duties under subsections (1), (2) and (3).This shall include, but not be restricted to guidance on—
(a) Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessment,
(b) consultation with Gypsies and Travellers on site location and design.'.—[Dr. Iddon.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Brian Iddon: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Peter Pike: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 23—Amendment of the Housing Act 1996— 
 '(1) The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows. 
 (2) In section 18(1) after ''housing'' there is inserted ''or caravan site management and provision activities''. 
 (3) In section 2(2), after paragraph (c) there is inserted—
 ''(d) caravan sites for Gypsies and Travellers as defined by section 24(8) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 as amended.''.'. 
New clause 24—Definitions— 
 ''In this Part— 
 ''Accommodation'' includes temporary stopping places as well as permanent accommodation. 
 ''Gypsies and Travellers'' means Gypsies, Irish Travellers and such other groups as are established to be racial groups under the Race Relations Act 1976 and all other people who are of nomadic habit of life whatever their race or origin, but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen or persons engaged in travelling circuses, travelling together as such, but does include those who do not travel but retain nomadic character by reason of— 
 (a) the person's history including family history; 
 (b) the reasons for ceasing to travel; 
 (c) the person's future wishes and intentions to resume travelling when or if the reasons for settling have ceased to apply; and 
 (d) the person's attitude to living in a caravan rather than a conventional house.'.

Brian Iddon: Gypsies have had a rough time. I think that that is all I will have time to say, although this is a serious issue. I am moving the new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). She gave me four pages of notes, all very serious stuff, but the gist of the argument is that if the United Kingdom is looking for decent homes for most of our citizens in England and Wales, we cannot exclude a significant minority of people who have been excluded for such a long time. They cannot find public sector sites any more. The statutory changes made in 1994 expected them to find their own land and build their own permanent sites, but local authority after local authority has denied them that possibility by refusing planning permission.
 At some significant point in the future, we have to look at the position in Britain of the Romany and of Travellers in general in a much more serious light than we can this evening. In view of the lateness of the hour, that is all that I can add.

Robert Syms: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this topic towards the end of the Committee. It is important to make provisions for Gypsies and Travellers. I served for a number of years on Wiltshire county council at a time when sites were designated. That designation was accompanied by Government grants so that provision was made for Gypsies and Travellers. The main advantage for the county council was that it allowed greater legal force to move Gypsies and Travellers on from areas where they should not be. One of the retrograde steps taken by the Conservative Government was that they stopped the grants and decided to move away from designation. I supported that Government in general, but I did not do so on this issue. I think that many of the problems that we have had have been compounded by that wrong Government decision.
 I note that the new clause deals purely with planning purposes. However, to deal with an issue that many of our constituents perceive to be a problem, we have to make proper provision—sometimes through local authority sites for Gypsies and Travellers. The Government ought seriously to consider returning to 
 the previous scheme. It worked well when authorities took advantage of it, and the authorities that had difficulties were those that did not opt for designation. As a Front-Bench Member, I put my hand up and admit that the previous Government made a mistake. Fortunately, the Major Government did not make many mistakes; however, that was certainly one of them. Ministers in the Department ought to consider seriously whether we ought to go backwards or forwards on the issue.

Edward Davey: It is great when people repent. The hon. Gentleman did so with grace, and I am pleased about that. This group of new clauses is serious and enjoys support from many quarters. The National Farmers Union, for example, has written to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow to urge him to support the new clause, which we shall do if it is put to a vote.
 We are talking about the rights not only of Gypsies and Travellers but of the surrounding communities. Because Gypsies and Travellers are forced to try to find land, they often come into conflict with communities. There are a number of examples of that from my constituency. Because there are no more designated sites under the grant regime, Travellers have tried to find land, which has caused huge problems because they have done so in an unplanned, quite anarchic way, and have often resorted to breaking the law. That perpetuates the antipathy that communities sometimes feel towards them. The group of new clauses would trigger a policy review by the Government, which would help both Gypsies and Travellers, and the wider communities that we represent. The group has great merit and I hope that the Minister will give it proper consideration.

Yvette Cooper: This group of new clauses is important, but we do not have time for a long debate now. I should like to make it clear that I agree with the premise behind the group, which is that the present housing provision and planning systems do not adequately deal with site provision and the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers. Local authorities do not assess their housing needs as they do the needs of the settled population. The planning system does not allow Gypsies and Travellers to identify sites themselves, which the evidence shows is increasingly what they choose to do. It is hard to find appropriate sites, which means that more and more development takes place on inappropriate sites, which can result in difficult consequences for the planning system and community cohesion, and in confrontation. I therefore agree with the premise.
 A major review is now under way. Officials in the Department are holding a series of seminars with stakeholders, considering the issue in great detail. We are looking at incorporating the consideration of the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers into the mainstream of the housing needs assessment and the planning system, because those needs are not now so considered. The problem with the previous system, which had certain advantages derived from the duty in 
 legislation, treated the category of Gypsies and Travellers as an add-on that could easily be lopped off as soon as the political climate changed. 
 We want to consider how, ideally, we can bring such needs into the mainstream. We have not yet reached any final conclusions about whether that would require primary legislation, although we are obviously mindful of the Bill's timetable. Such matters can be addressed through secondary legislation and by changing how the housing needs assessment and planning system work—for example, by revising circular 1/94 to make it easier for Gypsies and Travellers to identify their own sites and get support in doing so. That is currently under way. 
 We completely agree with new clause 23, which is about housing corporations being able to provide funding for Gypsies and Travellers. That might also be done through secondary legislation, but we agree with the principle of implementing the intention behind the proposal. New clause 24, which asks for reconsideration of the definition of Gypsies and Travellers, is perhaps the stickiest and most difficult. There are different definitions in race relations legislation and the planning regime, which focuses on land use rather than ethnic definitions. However, again, we are keen to consider the issue further, as part of the review. 
 On that basis, I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East to withdraw the clause. We agree with the broad intention, but believe that at present there may be other ways of more effectively delivering what we are trying to achieve.

Brian Iddon: I am grateful to hear what the Minister has said, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, too, will be pleased to read those remarks tomorrow. We need a serious debate on this matter, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 It being five minutes to Seven o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [20 January 2004], as amended, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

New schedule 2 - Registered social landlords

Housing Associations Act 1985 (c.69)
 1 In section 87 of the Housing Associations Act 1985 (financial assistance with respect to formation, management, etc.of certain housing associations) omit— 
(a) in subsection (3), the words from '', acting'' onwards, and
(b) subsection (6).
Housing Act 1988 (c.50)
 2 The Housing Act 1988 is amended as follows. 
3 In section 50(2) (housing association grants) omit the words from '', acting'' onwards.
 4 In section 52(2) (recovery etc.of grants) omit the words from '', acting'' to ''determine,''.
 5 Omit section 55 (surplus rental income).
 6 In section 59(1A) (interpretation) for ''55'' substitute ''54''.
Housing Act 1996 (c.52)
 7 The Housing Act 1996 is amended as follows. 
8 In section 18(2) (social housing grants) omit the words from '', acting'' to ''determine,''.
 9 In section 20(3) (purchase grant where right to acquire exercised) omit the words from '', acting'' to ''determine,''.
 10 In section 21(3) (purchase grant in respect of other disposals) omit the words from '', acting'' to ''determine,''.
 11 In section 28 (grants under ss 50 to 55 of the Housing Act 1988), in the sidenote and in subsection (6), for ''55'' substitute ''54''.
 12 (1) In section 31(2) (offence of intentionally altering etc.document required to be produced under section 30), for paragraph (b) substitute—
''(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or both.''
 (2) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to any offence committed before the day on which that sub-paragraph comes into force.
 13 (1) Section 36 (issue of guidance by the Relevant Authority) is amended as follows.
 (2) In subsection (2) (particular matters with respect to which guidance may be issued under the section) for ''this section'' substitute ''subsection (1)''.
 (3) After subsection (2) insert—
 ''(2A) The Relevant Authority may also issue guidance with respect to—
(a) the governance of bodies that are registered social landlords;
(b) the effective management of such bodies;
(c) establishing and maintaining the financial viability of such bodies.''
 (4) In subsection (7) (guidance relevant to whether there has been mismanagement) after ''there has been'' insert ''misconduct or''.
 14 In paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1 (payments by way of gift, dividend or bonus) after paragraph (b) insert—
''(c) the payment of a sum, in accordance with the constitution or rules of the body, to a registered social landlord which is a subsidiary or associate of the body.''
 15 (1) Paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 (transfer of net assets on dissolution or winding up) is amended as follows.
 (2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), after ''1985'' insert ''(including such a company which is also a registered charity)''.
 (3) At the end of sub-paragraph (4) insert—
 ''And in such a case any registered social landlord specified in a direction under sub-paragraph (2) must be one to which paragraphs (a) and (b) above apply.''
 16 After paragraph 15 insert—
''Transfer of net assets on termination of charity not within paragraph 15(1)
 15A (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for any provisions of paragraph 15(2) to (6) to apply in relation to a registered social landlord within sub-paragraph (2)— 
(a) in such circumstances, and
(b) with such modifications,
as may be specified in the regulations.
 (2) A registered social landlord is within this sub-paragraph if—
(a) it is a registered charity, and
(b) it does not fall within sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 15.
 (3) Regulations under this paragraph may in particular provide that any provision of the regulations requiring the transfer of any property of the charity is to have effect notwithstanding—
(a) anything in the terms of its trusts, or
(b) any resolution, order or other thing done for the purposes of, or in connection with, the termination of the charity in any manner specified in the regulations.
 (4) Any regulations under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''
 17 (1) Paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 (general requirements as to accounts and audit) is amended as follows.
 (2) Omit sub-paragraph (4) (auditor's report to state whether accounts comply with paragraph 16).
 (3) For sub-paragraph (5) substitute—
 ''(5) Every registered social landlord shall furnish to the Relevant Authority—
(a) a copy of its accounts, and
(b) (subject to sub-paragraph (7)) a copy of the auditor's report in respect of them,
within six months of the end of the period to which they relate.
 (6) The auditor's report shall state, in addition to any other matters which it is required to state, whether in the auditor's opinion the accounts comply with the requirements laid down under this paragraph.
 (7) The provisions of sub-paragraphs (5)(b) and (6) do not apply where, by virtue of any enactment—
(a) any accounts of a registered social landlord are not required to be audited, and
(b) instead a report is required to be prepared in respect of them by a person appointed for the purpose (''the reporting accountant''),
and sub-paragraph (8) shall apply in place of those provisions.
 (8) In such a case—
(a) the registered social landlord shall furnish to the Relevant Authority a copy of the reporting accountant's report in respect of the accounts within six months of the end of the period to which they relate; and
(b) that report shall state, in addition to any other matters which it is required to state, whether in the reporting accountant's opinion the accounts comply with the requirements laid down under this paragraph.''
 18 After paragraph 16 of Schedule 1 insert—
''Companies exempt from audit requirements: accountant's report
 16A (1) This paragraph applies to registered social landlords which are companies registered under the Companies Act 1985 (''RSL companies''). 
(2) In section 249A of the Companies Act 1985 (exemptions from audit)—
(a) subsection (2) shall apply in relation to an RSL company which meets the total exemption conditions in respect of a financial year (whether it is a charity or not), and
(b) that subsection shall apply in relation to such a company in the same way as it applies in relation to an RSL company which is a charity and meets the report conditions in relation to a financial year; and
(c) subsection (1) accordingly does not have effect in relation to an RSL company.
 (3) In section 249C of that Act (report required for the purposes of section 249A(2)), subsection (3) shall apply in relation to an RSL company within sub-paragraph (2)(a) above as if the reference to satisfying the requirements of section 249A(4) were a reference to meeting the total exemption conditions.
 (4) The Relevant Authority may, in respect of any relevant financial year of an RSL company, give a direction to the company requiring it—
(a) to appoint a qualified auditor to audit its accounts and balance sheet for that year, and
(b) to furnish to the Relevant Authority a copy of the auditor's report by such date as is specified in the direction.
 (5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4), a financial year of an RSL company is a ''relevant financial year'' if—
(a) it precedes that in which the direction is given, and
(b) the company met either the total exemption conditions or the report conditions in respect of that year, and
(c) its accounts and balance sheet for that year were not audited in accordance with Part 7 of the Companies Act 1985.
 (6) In this paragraph—
(a) ''financial year'' has the meaning given by section 223 of the Companies Act 1985;
(b) ''qualified auditor'' means a person who is eligible for appointment as auditor of the company under Part 2 of the Companies Act 1989;
(c) any reference to a company meeting the report conditions is to be read in accordance with section 249A(4) of the Companies Act 1985; and
(d) any reference to a company meeting the total exemption conditions is to be read in accordance with section 249A(3) or section 249A(3) and (3A) of that Act, depending on whether it is a charity.''
 19 For paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 (appointment of auditors by industrial and provident societies), together with the heading preceding it, substitute—
''Industrial and provident societies exempt from audit requirements: accountant's report
 17 (1) This paragraph applies to registered social landlords which are industrial and provident societies. 
(2) Section 9A of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968 (duty to obtain accountant's reports where section 4 applied) shall have effect, in its application to such a landlord, with the omission of subsection (1)(b) (accountant's report required only where turnover exceeds a specified sum).
 (3) The Relevant Authority may, in respect of any relevant year of account of such a landlord, give a direction to the landlord requiring it—
(a) to appoint a qualified auditor to audit its accounts and balance sheet for that year, and
(b) to furnish to the Relevant Authority a copy of the auditor's report by such date as is specified in the direction.
 (4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3), a year of account of a landlord is a ''relevant year of account'' if—
(a) it precedes that in which the direction is given, and
(b) at the end of it there is in force in relation to it a disapplication under section 4A(1) of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968.
 (5) In this paragraph—
''qualified auditor'' means a person who is a qualified auditor for the purposes of the Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968;
''year of account'' has the meaning given by section 21(1) of that Act.''
 20 (1) Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 (accounting and audit requirements for charities) is amended as follows.
 (2) In the cross-heading preceding the paragraph, after ''and audit'' insert ''or reporting''.
 (3) In sub-paragraph (1) (application of provisions to registered social landlord which is a registered charity) omit the words from ''(which impose'' onwards.
 (4) For sub-paragraph (4) substitute—
 ''(4) The charity must appoint a qualified auditor (''the auditor'') to audit the accounts prepared in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) in respect of each period of account in which—
(a) the charity's gross income (within the meaning of the Charities Act 1993) arising in connection with its housing activities, or
(b) its total expenditure arising in connection with those activities,
exceeds the sum for the time being specified in section 43(1) of the Charities Act 1993 (audit required for charities where gross income or total income exceeds the specified sum).
 (4A) Where sub-paragraph (4) does not apply in respect of a period of account, the charity must appoint a qualified auditor (''the reporting accountant'') to make such a report as is mentioned in paragraph 18A(1) in respect of the period of account.
 (4B) In sub-paragraphs (4) and (4A) ''qualified auditor'' means a person who is eligible for appointment as auditor of the charity under Part 2 of the Companies Act 1989 or who would be so eligible if the charity were a company registered under the Companies Act 1985.''
 21 After paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 insert—
''Charities exempt from audit requirements: accountant's report
 18A (1) The report referred to in paragraph 18(4A) is a report— 
(a) relating to the charity's accounts prepared in accordance with paragraph 18(3) in respect of the period of account in question, and
(b) complying with sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below.
 (2) The report must state whether, in the opinion of the reporting accountant—
(a) the revenue account or accounts and the balance sheet are in agreement with the books of account kept by the charity under paragraph 18(2),
(b) on the basis of the information contained in those books of account, the revenue account or accounts and the balance sheet comply with the requirements of the Charities Act 1993, and
(c) on the basis of the information contained in those books of account, paragraph 18(4A) applied to the charity in respect of the period of account in question.
 (3) The report must also state the name of the reporting accountant and be signed by him.
 (4) Paragraph 18(7) applies to the reporting accountant and his functions under this paragraph as it applies to an auditor and his functions under paragraph 18.
 (5) The Relevant Authority may, in respect of a relevant period of account of a charity, give a direction to the charity requiring it—
(a) to appoint a qualified auditor to audit its accounts for that period, and
(b) to furnish to the Relevant Authority a copy of the auditor's report by such date as is specified in the direction;
and paragraph 18(5) to (7) apply to an auditor so appointed as they apply to an auditor appointed under paragraph 18.
 (6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (5), a period of account of a charity is a relevant period of account if—
(a) it precedes that in which the direction is given; and
(b) paragraph 18(4A) applied in relation to it.
 (7) In this paragraph ''period of account'' and ''qualified auditor'' have the same meaning as in paragraph 18(4A).''
 22 (1) Paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 (responsibility for securing compliance with accounting requirements) is amended as follows.
 (2) In sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) in paragraph (c), after ''and audit'' insert ''or reporting'';
(b) omit paragraph (d) (but not the ''or'' at the end); and
(c) for ''level 3'' substitute ''level 5''.
 (3) The amendment made by sub-paragraph (2)(c) does not apply in relation to any offence committed before the day on which that sub-paragraph comes into force.
 (4) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—
 ''(5) Where any of paragraphs (a) to (e) of sub-paragraph (2) applies in respect of any default on the part of a registered social landlord, the High Court may, on the application of the Relevant Authority, make such order as the court thinks fit for requiring the default to be made good.
 Any such order may provide that all the costs or expenses of and incidental to the application shall be borne by the registered social landlord or by any of its officers who are responsible for the default.''
 23 After paragraph 19 of Schedule 1 insert—
''Disclosure of information by auditors etc.to the Relevant Authority
 19A (1) A person who is, or has been, an auditor of a registered social landlord does not contravene any duty to which he is subject merely because he gives to the Relevant Authority —
(a) information on a matter of which he became aware in his capacity as auditor of the registered social landlord, or
(b) his opinion on such a matter,
if he is acting in good faith and he reasonably believes that the information or opinion is relevant to any functions of the Relevant Authority.
 (2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies whether or not the person is responding to a request from the Relevant Authority.
 (3) This paragraph applies to a person who is, or has been, a reporting accountant as it applies to a person who is, or has been, an auditor.
 (4) A ''reporting accountant'' means a person appointed as mentioned in paragraph 16(7)(b).''
 24 (1) Paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 (inquiry into affairs of registered social landlord) is amended as follows.
 (2) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—
 ''(4A) The person or persons conducting the inquiry may determine the procedure to be followed in connection with the inquiry.''
 (3) At the end of sub-paragraph (7) add '', and the Relevant Authority may arrange for the whole or part of an interim or final report to be published in such manner as it considers appropriate.''
 (4) After sub-paragraph (7) insert—
 ''(8) A local authority may, if they think fit, contribute to the expenses of the Relevant Authority in connection with any inquiry under this paragraph.''
 25 After paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 insert—
''Evidence
 20A (1) For the purposes of an inquiry the person or persons conducting it may serve a notice on an appropriate person directing him to attend at a specified time and place and do either or both of the following, namely— 
(a) give evidence;
(b) produce any specified documents, or documents of a specified description, which are in his custody or under his control and relate to any matter relevant to the inquiry.
 (2) The person or persons conducting such an inquiry—
(a) may take evidence on oath and for that purpose administer oaths, or
(b) instead of administering an oath, require the person examined to make and subscribe a declaration of the truth of the matters about which he is examined.
 (3) In this paragraph—
''appropriate person'' means a person listed in section 30(2);
''document'' has the same meaning as in section 30;
''inquiry'' means an inquiry under paragraph 20.
 (4) A person may not be required under this paragraph to disclose anything that, by virtue of section 30(4), he could not be required to disclose under section 30.
 (5) Section 31 (enforcement of notice to provide information, &c) applies in relation to a notice given under this paragraph by the person or persons conducting an inquiry as it applies in relation to a notice given under section 30 by the Relevant Authority, but subject to sub-paragraph (6).
 (6) A person guilty of an offence under section 31(1) as it applies in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or both.
 (7) Any person who, in purported compliance with a notice given under this paragraph by the person or persons conducting an inquiry, knowingly or recklessly provides any information which is false or misleading in a material particular commits an offence and is liable to the penalties mentioned in sub-paragraph (6).
 (8) Proceedings for an offence under sub-paragraph (7) may be brought only by or with the consent of the Relevant Authority or the Director of Public Prosecutions.''
 26 (1) Paragraph 21 of Schedule 1 (power of appointed person to obtain information) is amended as follows.
 (2) At the end of sub-paragraph (3) (application of section 31 to notice under paragraph 20) add '', but subject to sub-paragraph (4).''
 (3) After sub-paragraph (3) add—
 ''(4) A person guilty of an offence under section 31(1) as it applies in accordance with sub-paragraph (3) is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or both.
 (5) Any person who, in purported compliance with a notice given under this paragraph by an appointed person, knowingly or recklessly provides any information which is false or misleading in a material particular commits an offence and is liable to the penalties mentioned in sub-paragraph (4).
 (6) Proceedings for an offence under sub-paragraph (5) may be brought only by or with the consent of the Relevant Authority or the Director of Public Prosecutions.''
 (4) The amendments made by this paragraph do not apply in relation to any offence committed or other thing done before the day on which this paragraph comes into force.'.
—[Keith Hill.]
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. 
 Clauses 170 to 176 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 177 - Powers of entry

Amendments made: No. 16, in 
clause 177, page 127, line 15, at end insert—
 '(6A) A person exercising the power of entry conferred by subsection (2) or (6) may do such of the following as he thinks necessary for the purpose for which the power is being exercised—
(a) take other persons with him;
(b) take equipment or materials with him;
(c) take measurements or photographs or make recordings;
(d) leave recording equipment on the premises for later collection;
(e) take samples of any articles or substances found on the premises.'. 
 No. 17, in 
clause 177, page 127, line 24, after '(2)', insert 'or (6)'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 177, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 178 - Warrant to authorise entry

Amendment made: No. 18, in 
clause 178, page 128, line 14, leave out from 'necessary)' to end of line 16 and insert— 
 '(5A) Subsection (6A) of section 177 applies to the person on whom that power is conferred as it applies to a person exercising the power of entry conferred by subsection (2) or (6) of that section.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 178, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 179 - Penalty for obstruction

Amendment made: No. 457, in 
clause 179, page 128, line 39, at end insert 'or 178'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 179, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 180 to 186 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Clause 187Orders and regulations

Orders and regulations

Amendment made: No. 78, in 
clause 187, page 132, line 35, after 'section', insert 
 '(Residential property tribunals)(3) or'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 187, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 188 to 190, and 196 to 199 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 - Minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: No. 163, in 
schedule 10, page 186, line 27, leave out 'the court' and insert 'a residential property tribunal'. 
No. 164, in 
schedule 10, page 186, line 32, leave out 'court' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 165, in 
schedule 10, page 186, line 40, leave out 'judge' and insert 'tribunal'. 
No. 166, in 
schedule 10, page 186, line 41, leave out 'his judgment' and insert 'its decision'. 
No. 21, in 
schedule 10, page 190, line 4, at end insert— 
 '15A In section 307(1) (saving for rights arising from breach of covenant etc.)for the words from ''relating to'' to ''prejudices'' substitute ''relating to the demolition or purchase of unfit premises prejudices.''.'. 
No. 167, in 
schedule 10, page 191, line 19, at end insert— 
 '''residential property tribunal section (residential property tribunals) of the Housing Act 2004''.'. 
No. 168, in 
schedule 10, page 194, line 11, at end insert— 
 'Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c.70) 
 24A (1) Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (limitation of service charges: costs of proceedings) is amended as follows. 
(2) In subsection (1) after ''a court'' insert '', residential property tribunal''. 
 (3) In subsection (2) after paragraph (a) insert— 
 ''(aa) in the case of proceedings before a residential property tribunal, to the Lands Tribunal;''.'. 
No. 204, in 
schedule 10, page 194, line 11, at end insert— 
 'Housing Act 1988 (c.50) 
 24B In paragraph 47 of Schedule 17 to the Housing Act 1988 (amendments of Part 9 of Housing Act 1985) for ''sections 264(5), 270(3), 276 and 286(3)'' substitute ''section 270(3)''.'. 
No. 443A, in 
 schedule 10, page 194, line 11, at end insert— 
 'Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (c.70) 
 24A (1) Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (limitation of service charges: costs of proceedings) is amended as follows. 
(2) In subsection (1) after ''a court'' insert '', residential property tribunal''. 
 (3) In subsection (2) after paragraph (a) insert— 
 ''(aa) in the case of proceedings before a residential property tribunal, to a leasehold valuation tribunal;''.'. 
No. 205, in
schedule 10, page 195, line 9, at end insert— 
 'Gas Act 1995 (c.45) 
 29A In paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Gas Act 1995 (statutory undertakers), in sub-paragraph (1)(xxxvi) for ''sections 283(2) and'' substitute ''section''.'.— 
 [Keith Hill.] 
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clause 200 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 - Repeals

Amendments made: No. 23, in 
schedule 11, page 196, column 2, leave out line 26. 
No. 206, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 3, at end insert— 
'London Building Acts (Amendment) Act 1939 (c.xcvii) {**c**}Section 35(1)(c)(i). 
 In section 36(1), the words ''or sleep''.'. 
 No. 430, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 3, at end insert— 
'Friendly and Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1968 (c.55) {**c**}Section 4A(3)(b).'. 
 No. 207, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 9, at end insert— 
'County of Merseyside Act 1980 (c.x) {**c**}Section 48. 
 Section 49(1) and (2). 
 In section 132(2), the words ''In section 48 (Means of escape from fire), subsection (5);''.Section 139(3).'. 
 No. 208, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 9, at end insert— 
'Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c.16) {**c**}In Schedule 2, in the entry relating to the Housing Act 1985 in paragraph 4, ''283,''.'. a 
 No. 209, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 9, at end insert— 
'Building Act 1984 (c.55) {**c**}Section 72(6)(a).'. 
 No. 464, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 9, at end insert— 
'Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34) {**c**}In Part 1 of Schedule 1, in paragraph 6(1), the words ''age and''.'. a 
 No. 22, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 21, column 2, at end insert— 
'Sections 283 to 288.'. 
 No. 24, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 31, column 2, at end insert— 
'In section 316(1), the words '', orobstructive building order''.'. 
 No. 169, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 34, column 2, at end insert— 
 'Section 318(4).'. 
No. 25, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 35, column 2, at end insert 
 'and '', or an obstructive building order,''.'. 
No. 26, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 38, column 2, after '''house''', insert 
 ', ''obstructive building'', ''obstructive building order''.'. 
No. 210, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 52, at end insert— 
 'Leicestershire Act 1985 (c.xvii) Section 54(6)(a).'. 
No. 211, in
schedule 11, page 196, line 52, at end insert— 
'Airports Act 1986 (c.31) {**c**}In Schedule 2, in the entry relating to the Housing Act 1985 in paragraph 1(1), ''283,''.'. 
 No. 431, in 
schedule 11, page 196, line 52, at end insert— 
'Housing Associations Act 1985 (c.69) {**c**}In section 87, in subsection (3) the words from '', acting'' onwards, and subsection (6).'. 
 No. 432, in 
schedule 11, page 197, line 2, column 2, at beginning insert— 
 'In section 50(2), the words from '', acting'' onwards. 
 In section 52(2), the words from '', acting'' to ''determine,''. 
 Section 55. 
 In section 57(a), ''or 55''.'. 
No. 212, in 
schedule 11, page 197, line 3, at end insert— 
'Electricity Act 1989 (c.29) {**c**}In Schedule 16, paragraph 1(1)(xl).'. 
 No. 433, in 
schedule 11, page 197, line 15, column 2, at beginning insert— 
 'In section 18(2), the words from '', acting'' to ''determine,''. 
 In section 20(3), the words from '', acting'' to ''determine,''. 
 In section 21(3), the words from '', acting'' to ''determine,''.'. 
No. 434, in 
schedule 11, page 197, line 15, column 2, at end insert— 
 'In Schedule 1, paragraph 16(4), in paragraph 18(1) the words from ''(which impose'' onwards, and in paragraph 19(2) paragraph (d) (but not the ''or'' at the end).'. 
No. 213, in 
schedule 11, page 197, line 26, at end insert— 
'Transport Act 2000 (c.38) {**c**}In Schedule 5, in paragraph 1(2)(o), ''283,''.'. 
 [Keith Hill.] 
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to. 
 Clauses 201 to 203 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 204 - Short title, commencement and extent

Amendments made: No. 458, in 
clause 204, page 140, line 26, after '154,' insert 
 '(Power to amend terms implied in site agreements),'. 
No. 459, in 
clause 204, page 140, line 32, leave out '167' and insert 
 '164, (Particulars of site agreements to be given in advance), (Implied terms relating to termination of agreements or disposal of mobile homes), (Succession to site agreements by same sex partners), (Extension of protection from harassment for occupiers of mobile homes), 165 to'. 
No. 428, in 
clause 204, page 140, line 32, leave out second 'and' and insert— 
 '(aa) Schedule (Registered social landlords), except paragraphs 15 and 16, and' 
No. 460, in 
clause 204, page 140, line 34, at beginning insert 
 'The provisions listed in subsection (4A) come into force— 
 (a) where they are to come into force in relation only to Wales, on such day as the National Assembly for Wales may by order appoint, and 
 (b) otherwise, on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. 
 (4A) The provisions referred to in subsection (4) are'. 
No. 19, in
clause 204, page 140, line 34, leave out 'Parts 1 to 4, and'' and insert 
 'Part 1 (other than section 8), Parts 2 to 4,'. 
No. 79, in 
clause 204, page 140, line 34, after '168,', insert 
 '(Residential property tribunals), (Appeals from residential property tribunals),'. 
No. 429, in 
clause 204, page 140, line 34, after '200', insert 
 ', paragraphs 15 and 16 of Schedule (Registered social landlords)'. 
No. 80, in 
clause 204, page 140, line 35, after 'Schedules', insert 
 '(Residential property tribunals: procedure),'. 
No. 461, in 
clause 204, page 140, line 35, leave out from '11' to end of line 38. 
No. 462, in 
clause 204, page 141, line 11, at beginning insert 
 'Subject to subsections (11) and (12),'. 
No. 463, in 
clause 204, page 141, line 11, at end insert— 
 '(11) Any amendment or repeal made by this Act has the same extent as the enactment to which it relates, except that any amendment or repeal in— 
 the Mobile Homes Act 1983 (c.34), or 
 the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37), 
 extends to England and Wales only. 
 (12) This section extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Clause 204, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 12 - Residential property tribunals

'(1) Any jurisdiction conferred on a residential property tribunal by or under any enactment is exercisable by a rent assessment committee constituted in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 (c.42). 
 (2) When so constituted for exercising any such jurisdiction a rent assessment committee is known as a residential property tribunal. 
 (3) The appropriate national authority may by order make provision for and in connection with conferring on residential property tribunals, in relation to such matters as are specified in the order, such jurisdiction as is so specified. 
 (4) An order under subsection (3) may modify an enactment (including this Act). 
 (5) Schedule (Residential property tribunals: procedure) (Residential property tribunals: procedure) has effect.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 13 - Appeals from residential property tribunals

'(1) A party to proceedings before a residential property tribunal may appeal to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of the residential property tribunal. 
 (2) But the appeal may only be made— 
 (a) with the permission of the residential property tribunal or the Lands Tribunal, and 
 (b) within the time specified by rules under section 3(6) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 (c.42). 
 (3) On the appeal— 
 (a) the Lands Tribunal may exercise any power which was available to the residential property tribunal, and
 (b) a decision of the Lands Tribunal may be enforced in the same way as a decision of the residential property tribunal. 
 (4) Section 11(1) of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 (c.53) (appeals from certain tribunals to High Court) does not apply to any decision of a residential property tribunal. 
 (5) For the purposes of section 3(4) of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 (c.42) (which enables a person aggrieved by a decision of the Lands Tribunal to appeal to the Court of Appeal) a residential property tribunal is not to be regarded as an aggrieved person.'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1 - Residential property tribunals: procedure

Procedure regulations 
 1 (1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations about the procedure of residential property tribunals. 
(2) Nothing in the following provisions of this Schedule affects the generality of sub-paragraph (1). 
 (3) In those provisions— 
 ''procedure regulations'' means regulations under this paragraph; 
 ''tribunal'' means a residential property tribunal. 
 Appeals 
 2 (1) Procedure regulations may include provision, in relation to applications to tribunals— 
(a) about the form of such applications and the particulars to be contained in them, and 
 (b) requiring the service of notices of such applications. 
 (2) Procedure regulations may include provision, in relation to appeals to tribunals— 
 (a) about the form of notices of appeal and the particulars to be contained in them, and 
 (b) requiring the service of copies of such notices. 
 (3) Procedure regulations may include provision dispensing with the service of the notices or copies mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(b) in such cases of urgency as are specified in the regulations. 
 Transfers 
 3 (1) This paragraph applies where, in any proceedings before a court, there falls for determination a question which a tribunal would have jurisdiction to determine on an application or appeal to the tribunal. 
(2) The court— 
 (a) may by order transfer to the tribunal so much of the proceedings as relate to the determination of that question, and 
 (b) may then dispose of all or any remaining proceedings, or adjourn the disposal of all or any remaining proceedings pending the determination of that question by the tribunal, as it thinks fit. 
 (3) When the tribunal has determined the question, the court may give effect to the determination in an order of the court. 
 (4) Rules of court may prescribe the procedure to be followed in a court in connection with or in consequence of a transfer under this paragraph. 
 (5) Procedure regulations may prescribe the procedure to be followed in a tribunal consequent on a transfer under this paragraph. 
 (6) Nothing in this Act affects any power of a court to make an order that could be made by a tribunal (such as an order quashing a licence granted or order made by a local housing authority) in a case where— 
 (a) the court has not made a transfer under this paragraph, and 
 (b) the order is made by the court in connection with disposing of any proceedings before it.
 Parties etc. 
 4 (1) Procedure regulations may include provision enabling persons to be joined as parties to the proceedings. 
(2) Procedure regulations may include provision enabling persons who are not parties to proceedings before a tribunal to make oral or written representations to the tribunal. 
 Information 
 5 (1) A tribunal may serve a notice requiring any party to proceedings before it to give to the tribunal any information which the tribunal may require. 
(2) The information must be given to the tribunal within such period (of not less than 14 days) from the date of service of the notice as is specified in the notice. 
 (3) A person commits an offence if he fails to comply with a notice served on him under sub-paragraph (1). 
 (4) A person who commits an offence under sub-paragraph (3) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. 
 (5) In proceedings against a person for an offence under sub-paragraph (3) it is a defence that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the notice. 
 Pre-trial reviews etc. 
 6 (1) Procedure regulations may include provision for the holding of a pre-trial review (on the application of a party to the proceedings or on the tribunal's own initiative). 
(2) Procedure regulations may provide for functions of a tribunal in relation to, or at, a pre-trial review to be exercised by a single qualified member of the panel. 
 (3) Procedure regulations may provide for other functions as to preliminary or incidental matters to be exercised by a single qualified member of the panel. 
 (4) For the purposes of this paragraph— 
 (a) a person is a qualified member of the panel if he was appointed to it by the Lord Chancellor; and 
 (b) ''the panel'' means the panel provided for in Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 (c.42). 
 Interim orders 
 7 Procedure regulations may include provision empowering tribunals to make orders, on an interim basis— 
(a) suspending, in whole or in part, the effect of any decision, notice, order or licence which is the subject matter of proceedings before them; 
 (b) granting any remedy which they would have had power to grant in their final decisions. 
 Additional relief 
 8 (1) Procedure regulations may include provision as to— 
(a) any additional relief which tribunals may grant in respect of proceedings before them; and 
 (b) the grounds on which such relief may be granted. 
 (2) In this paragraph ''additional relief'' means relief additional to any relief specifically authorised by any provision of Parts 1 to 4 of this Act. 
 Dismissal 
 9 Procedure regulations may include provision empowering tribunals to dismiss applications, appeals or transferred proceedings, in whole or in part, on the ground that they are— 
(a) frivolous or vexatious, or 
 (b) otherwise an abuse of process. 
 Determination without hearing 
 10 (1) Procedure regulations may include provision for the determination of applications, appeals or transferred proceedings without an oral hearing. 
(2) Procedure regulations may provide for a single qualified member of the panel to make determinations without an oral hearing. 
 (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)— 
 (a) a person is a qualified member of the panel if he was appointed to it by the Lord Chancellor; and 
 (b) ''the panel'' means the panel provided for in Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 (c.42).
 Fees 
 11 (1) Procedure regulations may include provision requiring the payment of fees in respect of applications, appeals or transfers of proceedings to, or oral hearings by, tribunals. 
(2) The fees payable shall be such as are specified in or determined in accordance with procedure regulations. 
 (3) But the fee (or, where fees are payable in respect of both an application, appeal or transfer and an oral hearing, the aggregate of the fees) payable by a person in respect of any proceedings must not exceed— 
 (a) £500, or 
 (b) such other amount as may be specified in procedure regulations. 
 (4) Procedure regulations may empower a tribunal to require a party to proceedings before it to reimburse another party to the proceedings the whole or any part of any fees paid by him. 
 (5) Procedure regulations may provide for the reduction or waiver of fees by reference to the financial resources of the party by whom they are to be paid or met. 
 (6) If they do so they may apply, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations, any other statutory means-testing regime as it has effect from time to time. 
 Costs 
 12 (1) A tribunal may determine that a party to proceedings before it is to pay the costs incurred by another party in connection with the proceedings in any circumstances falling within sub-paragraph (2). 
(2) The circumstances are where— 
 (a) he has made an application or appeal to the tribunal which is dismissed in accordance with regulations made by virtue of paragraph 9, or
 (b) he has, in the opinion of the tribunal, acted frivolously, vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably in connection with the proceedings. 
 (3) The amount which a party to proceedings may be ordered to pay in the proceedings by a determination under this paragraph must not exceed— 
 (a) £500, or 
 (b) such other amount as may be specified in procedure regulations. 
 (4) A person may not be required to pay costs incurred by another person in connection with proceedings before a tribunal, except— 
 (a) by a determination under this paragraph, or 
 (b) in accordance with provision made by any enactment other than this paragraph. 
 Enforcement 
 13 Procedure regulations may provide for decisions of tribunals to be enforceable, with the permission of a county court, in the same way as orders of such a court.'.— 
 [Keith Hill.] 
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Title

Amendment made: No. 465, in 
title, line 4, after 'buy;' , insert 
 'to make provision about mobile homes;'.—[Keith Hill.] 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at Seven o'clock.
 Hill, Keith  Iddon, Dr.  Keeble, Ms  Kidney, Mr.  Mole, Mr.  Rooney, Mr.  Ruane, Chris  Smith, Geraldine  Syms, Mr.  Whitehead, Dr.